The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 456 guests, and 39 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 13 of 20 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 19 20
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
I think that one can only say there is no agreement when one insists that Original Sin must be seen in one particular exclusive way only. Both East and West have tried to insist that their way is the exclusive way. One side views it from the perspective of law, one side views it from the perspective of brokenness in a relationship.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Quote
I think that one can only say there is no agreement when one insists that Original Sin must be seen in one particular exclusive way only.

I think you mean there can be variance of opinion when there is no dogma that codifies one particular view. Clearly there is disagreement within Catholicism itself however as evidenced in this thread despite the dogma; but that is a different issue.


Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
there can be variance of perspective.
Transubstantiation is a codified dogma, yet Eastern Catholics are not required to proclaim the real presence in a thomistic framework. The Oriental Orthodox did not accept the exact formulation of Chalcedon, yet they understand the faith in the same way, though expressed differently. Why should the Immaculate Conception be any different?

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Quote
Why should the Immaculate Conception be any different?

Clearly it isn't, as people have rather freely said they don't accept it as a dogma.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
One does not have to accept the theory of transubstantiation,which is predicated upon the metaphysics of Aristotle...
What exactly is that "theory"?

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
In fact, Pope St. Gelasius denied the idea of a "substantial" change in the Eucharistic elements in his treatise De Duabis Naturis, for as he said: "Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries" [Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West, page 41].
The quote has made the rounds but I've not found its source to be specified clearly. Does Kilmartin give a source publication for the primary reference and a location therein?

Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Is Pope St. Gelasius a heretic because he did not believe in transubstantiation?
First let's be sure what he may have not believed. Since he could not have known the term "transubstantiation" which was coined only later, the question is based on an anachronism.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
One does not have to accept the theory of transubstantiation,which is predicated upon the metaphysics of Aristotle...
What exactly is that "theory"?
The theory that says, contrary to what Pope St. Gelasius taught, that the substance of the bread and wine change, but that the accidents remain the same.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
Is Pope St. Gelasius a heretic because he did not believe in transubstantiation?
First let's be sure what he may have not believed. Since he could not have known the term "transubstantiation" which was coined only later, the question is based on an anachronism.
He denies any change of substance in connection with the bread and wine, but if you want to try and assert otherwise, by all means quote him asserting the later Western theory.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
In fact, Pope St. Gelasius denied the idea of a "substantial" change in the Eucharistic elements in his treatise De Duabis Naturis, for as he said: "Certainly the sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ that we receive are a divine reality, because of which and through which we are made sharers of the divine nature. Nevertheless the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to exist. And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the carrying out the Mysteries" [Edward J. Kilmartin, The Eucharist in the West, page 41].
The quote has made the rounds but I've not found its source to be specified clearly. Does Kilmartin give a source publication for the primary reference and a location therein?
In his footnotes Fr. Kilmartin, S.J., gives the text in Latin, although I am not going to transcribe that for you, but it is available in his book (see pages 41 and 42), and then he gives the following bibliographical information, "Gelasius, Tractate 3, De Duabis Naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium 14, (Thiel 541-542 [Schwartz, see above in no. 83])."

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by ByzBob
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by ByzBob
Thanks for bringing Bob Sungenis into this discussion. Here is his pdf on the recent Catholic vs. Protestant debate on the Immaculate Conception - notice what he says about the Patristic witness for the doctrine:
As a vignette illustrating his position -- that there is a Patristic witness for the Immaculate Conception -- I offer (from the article):
Quote
As for the patristic evidence for the Immaculate Conception, all that the Catholic Church needs is one witness to show that the concept or doctrine existed during that time period. That’s not a hard task. Dr. White’s favorite Father, Athanasius, gives a strong indication he believed Mary to be without sin. . . .
Dear Ajk,

Are you in agreement with Mr. Sungenis, and do you consider this to be a valid approach to the fathers?

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by ajk
I'm not familiar with the writings of Sungenis and would need to know more to better answer. To what were you referring when you wrote "notice what he says about the Patristic witness for the doctrine."

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Stuart, I do not mean this as a trap, or to corner you, but how, then can you reconcile this with the words of the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus . . .
Easy--it's just the the rantings of a rather opinionated Italian gentleman, and no concern of mine. Just because a Pope says something, and then says it is dogmatically binding, doesn't mean everybody will accept it as such. Just ask Gregory VII Hildebrand or Boniface VIII.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by danman916
Originally Posted by StuartK
Easy--it's just the the rantings of a rather opinionated Italian gentleman, and no concern of mine.
Oh, come now. You know better than that. It is far more than a ranting opinionated Italian Gentleman. You know that an Apostolic Constitution is no such thing and has a whole lot of magesterial authority to it. Ineffabilis Deus explicitly states that the mind of the Bishops was sought out. You're just being coy. I don't see how your statement can be reconciled that the I.C. can be treated by any Catholic as theologemoun.

Quote
Just because a Pope says something . . .
That's just rhetorical maneuvering. You're smart enough to know that this isn't something as simple as the pope waking up in the morning and deciding to make something dogmatic. With all due respect, claiming it as the rantings of an Italian gentleman is no position or defense at all. If a fellow Eastern Catholic were to come to you, feeling very torn because they want to be faithful to the Church, and didn't know how to reconcile Ineffabilis Deus with their own tradition as an Eastern Catholic, would you just tell them to pay no mind to the rantings of a Pope (which borders on being uncharitable IMO), or would you offer another way to help explain it to them?

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Stuart, I do not mean this as a trap, or to corner you, but how, then can you reconcile this with the words of the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus . . .
Easy--it's just the the rantings of a rather opinionated Italian gentleman, and no concern of mine.
Unfortunately, such a slur extends beyond the Pope himself:
Quote
Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." [Cf. Denz., n. 1641.]
Ineffabilis Deus Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854. link [papalencyclicals.net]

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by StuartK
Just because a Pope says something, and then says it is dogmatically binding . . .
This basically answers the thread's Subject: "Why is the Immaculate Conception considered Ex-Catherda [sic]?"
Originally Posted by StuartK
. . . doesn't mean everybody will accept it as such. Just ask Gregory VII Hildebrand or Boniface VIII.
The clear point of Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam was that such non-acceptance is, well, unacceptable.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 8

This is a re-post of a post that was lost:

Originally Posted by desertman
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Stuart, I do not mean this as a trap, or to corner you, but how, then can you reconcile this with the words of the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus . . .
Easy--it's just the the rantings of a rather opinionated Italian gentleman, and no concern of mine. Just because a Pope says something, and then says it is dogmatically binding, doesn't mean everybody will accept it as such. Just ask Gregory VII Hildebrand or Boniface VIII.
Successfully holding my tongue. Carry on.

Page 13 of 20 1 2 11 12 13 14 15 19 20

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5