|
1 members (San Nicolas),
2,544
guests, and
113
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,542
Posts417,794
Members6,208
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
Dear Father John: Bless Father! Aren't angels called "bodiless spirits" during our Holy Services? Yet they can assume a human form as when the Angel appeared to Mary to announce the Annunciation. Could this alternate form be from another dimension or from a parallel universe? Respectfully in Christ, Elizabeth The angels on the head of a pin thing was really just an intellectual exercise, and that is all it was intended to be originally.
In other words, given the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin," a student must first determine a few givens.
The first scholastic assumption was that angels do not have material bodies, but are pure intelligences.
Therefore there are 'present' wherever their attention is focused.
Therefore, the answer to the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" is...
all of them.
I believe that the Orthodox understanding of angels is that they are not pure intelligences, but have material bodies, but not of a matter like men. This because only God is considered "Pure Spirit."
At least, that's what I heard...
Last edited by Elizabeth Maria; 04/19/08 02:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Dear Father John:
Bless Father!
Aren't angels called "bodiless spirits" during our Holy Services?
Yet they can assume a human form as when the Angel appeared to Mary to announce the Annunciation. Could this alternate form be from another dimension or from a parallel universe?
Respectfully in Christ,
Elizabeth Elizabeth, That has always been my understanding as well. The angelic powers and heavenly hosts are immaterial, but can manifest themselves visibly as an accomodation to our materiality. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
I forgot the smilie. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 32
BANNED Member
|
|
BANNED Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 32 |
Could both Eastern and Western Philosophies and Theologies pertaining to Catholic & Orthodox be correct?
What if the Eastern Churches prayed for an answer that their theology was correct, and then the Western Church also prayed for an answer that their theology was correct and both received the answer "Yes"
then what? what would happen?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Rachael,
A very good question.
I think by and large it is a matter of emphasis between the Eastern and Western traditions. There are those who believe that the distinctives within these streams of Christianity represent absolutely divergent and irreconcilable points of view. Then there are others of us who also believe in the unity of Truth, while seeing that there is far more complimentarity (and even cross-fertilization) than some are willing to admit, and that both East and West are essentially catholic expressions of the same depositum fidei (deposit of faith).
God spoke His Final Word (His eternal "Yes!") who took flesh 2000 years ago and in Him resides the fullness of revelation. That same Word which convenes the Church of the Nations (a New Israel without borders) resonated across history, time, cultures, languages and peoples. The wonder and power of its universal scope and diversity makes it difficult for us to grasp, however, especially when looked at through the lens of an often difficult and contentious history none of us had a hand in creating.
So we have to discern these things together, we have to have the courage to state what we believe and not become distressed when we do not always agree or when we are criticized for our positions.
I do think John's insight about language and terminology is absolutely key. How do our temporal words align with and express the Eternal Word?
In ICXC,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 Likes: 1 |
Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
What people seem to forget is that Dogma and Doctrine are not the same. For example Do I as an Eastern Catholic believe that Mary was sinless throughout her life. Yes, do I believe in the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, No. The reason is that our Maronite Doctrine explains very successfully how she could remain sinless.
The Catholic Church declares that all the Churches within the Communion are equal, now it is upto us to think the same.
Poosh BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
The Immaculate Conception isn't a doctrine. It's a dogma.
It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that this dogma, which must be believed by all Catholic Christians exactly how it is infallibly formulated, and it's formulated using Latin terminology and theology. And that would, to me, seemingly make the "Latin way" of looking at this particular dogma the infallible and really only orthodox way, since Latin theology is the theology used to express this dogma. That would seem to make the differing theological patrimonies, de facto, unequal, wouldn't it?
Alexis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,342 Likes: 1 |
The Immaculate Conception isn't a doctrine. It's a dogma.
It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that this dogma, which must be believed by all Catholic Christians exactly how it is infallibly formulated, and it's formulated using Latin terminology and theology. And that would, to me, seemingly make the "Latin way" of looking at this particular dogma the infallible and really only orthodox way, since Latin theology is the theology used to express this dogma. That would seem to make the differing theological patrimonies, de facto, unequal, wouldn't it?
Alexis Shlomo Alexis, If you look at the followup to this Dogma, especially after Vatican II, yes all Catholics believe Mary was born sinless, but the doctrinal underlaying of it is not arrived at the same way. Poosh BaShlomo, Yuhannon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 94
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 94 |
I guess that we have to wait until the provincial "Latin way" is reformulated in a Universal "Greek way" at an Ecumenical Council for all things to be equal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 209 |
Memo has offered a very good explanation. It has always seemed to me that East / West issues regarding dogma and doctrine are sometimes problematic simply because of poor communication. For some Eastern Catholics accepting Catholic dogma means also accepting the (what I call the) �Latin language of doctrine� as either superior to the �Greek language of doctrine� or as the measuring stick for all Catholic theology. And, of course, the Catholic Church does not require this (and has, indeed, many times spoken to this). Eastern Catholics must accept the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. They must also accept that the Latin way of doing theology (the �Latin language of doctrine�) is valid. But there is no call or insistence that Eastern Catholics reject the �Greek language of doctrine� and replace it with the Latin formula. I will go so far as to say that the fact that we (as Eastern Catholics) have not really strived to find ways to study and digest the Latin formula and attempt to synthesize it with the �Greek language of doctrine� is an opportunity lost. Since the Vatican II Council we can see that Rome has been striving to speak to Catholic theology from the �Greek language of doctrine� as well as the �Latin language of doctrine�. The Melkites have taken some bold steps (and a few missteps) in trying to speak to some of the issues.
This is an issue that cuts right to the heart of the real problem of identity among Eastern Catholics. Some insist that we are Catholic first, and only then Eastern. But this is incorrect as it (among other things) leads to an identity crisis since many (but not all) of those who believe that the �Catholic first� approach means that the �Latin language of doctrine� is superior to the �Greek language of doctrine�. That is why I always firmly put forth as foundational that �Byzantine = Catholic� just as equally as �Latin = Catholic�. I agree in principal with this approach, however, it isn't always easily applied. Take for instance the teaching of original sin - do we inherit the guilt of Adam? Trent said that we do. Is Trent an ecumenical council, or just a general council of the West? Paul VI referred to the councils after Nicea II as being general councils of the west, but what is the official position? If they aren't ecumenical, and only apply to the West in their formulas we still run into a problem when we come to Vatican I. Either the Pope is infallible or he isn't. Though Rome has somewhat hedged on this in recent years too. The other problem is that I wrestle with is what I perceive as a tendency to over-dogmatize on the part of the Western Church. Ludwigg Ott, for example, almost makes everything a case of dogma. While Ott is only a private theologian, I think that his views of dogma are traditional, at least when it comes to the west. If that is the case how much �room,� to maneuver when it comes to questions of dogma? .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,037 Likes: 4
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,037 Likes: 4 |
Killjoy! Why would you deprive the poor angels of the pleasure of dancing on the head of a pin? It's the insurance, Father. Entirely to many claims for dancing on the wrong end, and no room on the pin for a warning label
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Surely an angel would not drag you into court to assert a claim for financial compensation!
But to get serious for a moment - so far as I am aware, there is no "magic dogma" which determines whether Eastern Catholics are Catholics.
Moreover - and this may come as a shock - the New Testament was written in Greek; the greater Fathers of the first millennium wrote in Greek, so if any language has a claim to a sort of linguistic primacy, that is assuredly Greek. Where does anyone get off suggesting that those who believe the conciliar and patristic teaching of the New Testament and the greater Fathers of the first millennium must nevertheless be judged by Msgr Macchiavelli's dubious schoolbooks?
If you read Latin yourself, and you would like an example of where this can lead, I suggest Jugie's alleged compendium of "Oriental" theology written and published during the inter-war period. To the best of my knowledge, it has never been translated into any vernacular language, for which I am truly thankful. As Jaroslav Pelikan might have said, Jugie was a man who knew a whole lot and understood next to nothing - a theological cynic.
So I strongly suggest abandoning searches for such theological shibboleths.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
The Immaculate Conception isn't a doctrine. It's a dogma.
It seems to me that the unfortunate reality is that this dogma, which must be believed by all Catholic Christians exactly how it is infallibly formulated, and it's formulated using Latin terminology and theology. And that would, to me, seemingly make the "Latin way" of looking at this particular dogma the infallible and really only orthodox way, since Latin theology is the theology used to express this dogma. That would seem to make the differing theological patrimonies, de facto, unequal, wouldn't it?
Alexis Alexis, I would approach this a different way. Dogma is a (verbal) expression of the life of the Church, the same life given to the Church (us) at Pentecost and constantly reinforced and renewed*. It is formulated as needs present themselves. So, that's why ὁμοούσιος/consubstantialem/one in being/one in essence has existed since time began and will exist forever, but was formulated as a dogma only at Nicea. The formulated dogma does not exhaust the truth. The way the Church has evolved, we have several different "traditions" (for lack of a better word) of theology. Two of those could be called "modern Latin" the other could be called "Byzantine". These two particular traditions approach theological questions with many philosophical, ontological differences as well as a massive difference in lexicography. However, they are both considered orthodox among those churches that are in communion with Rome (and mutual consideration of orthodoxy is absolutely necessary for communion) If a dogma is formulated in one Church in its own tradition, it does not automatically follow that: a. the dogma can be easily transmitted as pronounced into the other tradition and from there automatically accepted or rejected. b. that the dogma - properly understood with all the historical, theological background behind it, and in its precise meaning in its own particular context - is incompatible with the other tradition. I hold that a & b apply for a number of "problems", in include: Immaculate Conception, filioque, papal primacy, essence and energies. Markos * no those aren't my words. They're Archimandrite Vasileios'.
Last edited by MarkosC; 04/22/08 06:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133 |
Hi, I agree in principal with this approach, however, it isn't always easily applied. Take for instance the teaching of original sin - do we inherit the guilt of Adam? Trent said that we do. I am not so sure about that. Could you provide a quote from the acts of the Council of Trent where the fathers teach that we inherit the GUILT of Adam's sin? My understanding is that guilt is non-transferable. We are simply born into a human race which has a broken relationship with God as a consequence of Adam's sin. Guilt and consequences are not the same. Shalom, Memo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,772 Likes: 31
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,772 Likes: 31 |
Hi,
I agree in principal with this approach, however, it isn't always easily applied. Take for instance the teaching of original sin - do we inherit the guilt of Adam? Trent said that we do.
I am not so sure about that. Could you provide a quote from the acts of the Council of Trent where the fathers teach that we inherit the GUILT of Adam's sin?
My understanding is that guilt is non-transferable. We are simply born into a human race which has a broken relationship with God as a consequence of Adam's sin. Guilt and consequences are not the same.
Shalom,
Memo One needs to examine the text of Trent carefully. In Latin �guilt� has more than one meaning. It can mean �doing the crime� as well as �paying the fine�. Such definition does not follow in the English use of the word. In Latin (for example) a husband can be guilty of �committing the crime� while his wife and kids would be guilty of �paying the fine� (i.e., living with the consequences of hard life since the husband is now in jail and they have nothing to eat and no roof over their head). Saying (in Latin) that the wife is guilty of her husband�s crime does not mean she inherits the guilt of the actual crime. It means she inherits the guilt of paying the fine. If you examine Trent in light of the two different definitions of �guilt� you can see that the guilt we inherit from Adam is not the guilt of committing the original sin but rather the guilt of living with the consequences of original sin. This has been discussed before.
|
|
|
|
|
