The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Wenura Ravindu, Leeno, San Nicolas, Skanderbeg, ClearwaterByz
5,844 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Fr. Al), 108 guests, and 38 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
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
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,166
Posts414,953
Members5,844
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
“Et macula originalis non est in te!” Cries the beautiful hymn to Mary, “Tota Pulchra es Maria”
Can you tell me how the Orthodox churches understand Panagia? Even if the anthropologies of east and west are a bit different, does not the title Theotokos imply that she is most special, and even conceived without sin? Duns Scotus thought so.

And Thomas Aquinas disagreed with him. The specialness of the Panagia is that she chose of Her own free will to eschew sin and thus was Immaculate, not that She was given a special gift by God.
If She is conceived immaculately, then she is not a regular human being, which affects our whole soteriology. The flesh of Jesus is something other than the flesh of a normal human being. Furthermore, it takes away from Her glory. The glory of the Theotokos is that She, but just like us and subject to all the temptations we are subject to, said a loud and emphatic "NO" to them.

And finally, if God would do that for Her, then why not for the whole human race, as I heard one Orthodox commentator ask. I think that a fair question.


Are not “Indulgences” but an application of the Church’s Economia and are they not a beautiful application of the Communion of Saints? Forgiveness itself is an indulgence. Just because the Orthodox have not indulged in this particular aspect of soteriology does not mean the Roman application of such is “false”.

It is not found in the Fathers. Furthermore, as I understand Indulgences (and I have a lot to learn as I head toward Orthodoxy), they are a kind of payment to God, which smacks of the legal idea of soteriology which the East rejects.

The Orthodox churches, among themselves, assert Primacy all the time. Isn’t the controversy between Moscow and Constantinople really about this issue? Why can they not assert this of the First among Equals (Bishop of Rome) who they continue to separate themselves from even though they acknowledge the primacy of this church?

Once again, for all the arguments in the positive it was simply not part of the Early Church. The whole idea is built on a bad understanding of Matthew 16 and the authority which the keys held.

The Church is infallible. The Bishop of Rome is but an unfailing guarantee of that infallibility. He possesses that infallibility that belongs to the Church regarding what is essential for belief. I think St. Maximos, Confessor, a reliable Father of the East had some choice words regarding both the primacy and doctrinal trustworthiness of this preeminent church. No? Who, among the Orthodox, is a guarantee?

Did you read what I posted in this regard? The Roman Church has horrendously mistranslated certain portions of the Sacred Scriptures. This does not bode well for the idea of ecclesial infallibility. When you say things like "aionios" means eternal, or "aion" is translated "age" or "metanoia" means "do penance," I find it hard to accept the idea of an infallible body that has erred so badly.

The original wording of the Creed has always been acknowledged and honored by the Church of Rome. The “Filioque” clause was added, not to change the substance of the Creed, but to clarify that Father and Son are coequal in terms of their divinity as They are, together with the Holy Spirit, adored and glorified.

Not the point. The Sixth and Seventh Councils declare anathema on anyone who would add to or take away from the previous counsels. The Frankish bishops had no business tampering with the wording. But maybe we can go back if we don't like the canons and do our own tampering? At what point does that stop?

Purgatory? Well, I guess both Orthodox and Catholics pray for the deceased for some reason, if ancient Roman catacomb inscriptions and modern practice testifies. Perhaps Purgation is just a way to understand, in our very limited, and prone to the material and temporal kind-of-way, what goes on between our physical demise and the Final Judgment. How can you consider this an heretical concept?

The Orthodox certainly do believe that the fires of God's love will burn away all that is not like Him. We also believe it will be an uncomfortable (perhaps quite painful, depending on the person) experience. What we do not believe is that it is a place which exists away from God and we certainly do not believe in the Medieval ideas of punishment that were expressed in some of the more lurid descriptions of Purgatory.

As far as the use of “dead bread” is concerned, I believe the use of azymes is a very ancient practice that predates the Constantinian church, being used by the Church of Rome, and, as wel,l by the Armenians. The liturgical reforms that were instituted for the Latin rite after the Second Vatican Council follow the extremely ancient norms of that Autocephalous church’s tradition which is equally as valid and orthodox as anything in the east! The cant of “Trads” is historical and ecclesiastical nonsense. If the “Novus Ordo” seems too Protestant, it is only because Rome has finally heard the justifiable cry of the Reformers for a comprehensible language for the Laicos.

If it was such an ancient practice, then I must ask why it became one of the major sticking points of reunion in the East?

I appreciate your answers and your effort, yet I see two different ecclesial bodies with two different histories. The East appears to have not added anything to the ancient practices while the West has created a number of theological novums which I just can't find in the Early Church. If you are comfortable with the Western way of understanding things, more power to you. I am not, therefore, in all honestly, I must leave.

Thank you for your replies.

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by ajk

[quote=Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
... there are non-doctrinal practices which have been elevated to almost the level of dogma, such as celibate priests, non-leavened bread in the Eucharist, making children wait for the Eucharist, etc.
You are out of control; how am I to take you seriously? I appreciate that you have become somewhat more refined and have dropped the "dead bread" (Post: my comments on "dead bread" etc.) pejorative.[/quote]

I will offer an apology and ask your forgiveness. I simply must learn to tone down my posts and stop with the pejoratives. They do no good and create a sinful situation for me.

Last edited by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian); 02/20/22 02:45 AM.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 693
Likes: 5
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 693
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
If it was such an ancient practice, then I must ask why it became one of the major sticking points of reunion in the East?

You tell me. Because it is an ancient practice and has as much validity as using leavened bread, but some Orthodox get rattled by this. As far as I'm concerned, all these things are "dead" issues, and we must get on with understanding one another and restoring unity.

I am very happy you are finding a peaceful home among the Orthodox, but there is no reason you should belittle what you left behind. I went the other way some years ago after spending 15 years in the OCA. Being Greek Catholic now makes me feel, as an old man, that unity I always longed for. I still cultivate a love and admiration for Orthodoxy, but find fhe intragency and hostility of many extremely troubling.

Last edited by Utroque; 02/20/22 08:33 PM. Reason: punctuation
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
If it was such an ancient practice, then I must ask why it became one of the major sticking points of reunion in the East?

You tell me. Because it is an ancient practice and has as much validity as using leavened bread, but some Orthodox get rattled by this. As far as I'm concerned, all these things are "dead" issues, and we must get on with understanding one another and restoring unity.

I am very happy you are finding a peaceful home among the Orthodox, but there is no reason you should belittle what you left behind. I went the other way some years ago after spending 15 years in the OCA. Being Greek Catholic now makes me feel, as an old man, that unity I always longed for. I still cultivate a love and admiration for Orthodoxy, but find fhe intragency and hostility of many extremely troubling.

And I am also glad you found a place where you feel at home and can worship the Lord according to your conscience.

You know, one thing that has puzzled and intrigued me over the last many years of my studies of the Christian faith is this: we see miracles happening in all branches of belief. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. I sometimes think that God is more interested in and blesses those who love Him with their whole heart than extreme doctrinal precision. What do you think?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 693
Likes: 5
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 693
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
You know, one thing that has puzzled and intrigued me over the last many years of my studies of the Christian faith is this: we see miracles happening in all branches of belief. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. I sometimes think that God is more interested in and blesses those who love Him with their whole heart than extreme doctrinal precision. What do you think?

I think that's how the much maligned and, sometimes, ambiguous Pope Francis feels. Hasn't he called the contemporary martyrdom of Christians the "ecumenism of blood"? I find that a very powerful testimony, and an impulse to the urgency of getting on with it.

Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 17
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
Originally Posted by Utroque
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
If it was such an ancient practice, then I must ask why it became one of the major sticking points of reunion in the East?

You tell me. Because it is an ancient practice and has as much validity as using leavened bread, but some Orthodox get rattled by this. As far as I'm concerned, all these things are "dead" issues, and we must get on with understanding one another and restoring unity.

I am very happy you are finding a peaceful home among the Orthodox, but there is no reason you should belittle what you left behind. I went the other way some years ago after spending 15 years in the OCA. Being Greek Catholic now makes me feel, as an old man, that unity I always longed for. I still cultivate a love and admiration for Orthodoxy, but find fhe intragency and hostility of many extremely troubling.

And I am also glad you found a place where you feel at home and can worship the Lord according to your conscience.

You know, one thing that has puzzled and intrigued me over the last many years of my studies of the Christian faith is this: we see miracles happening in all branches of belief. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. I sometimes think that God is more interested in and blesses those who love Him with their whole heart than extreme doctrinal precision. What do you think?

Lest I sound like a relativist or that I'm promoting into some bland, undifferentiated ecumenism, let me preface by saying I do think that the truth matters and that participating in the Church that Christ founded in order to live the fullness of it is important. But, I tend to agree. Based on what we see of Christ and how He acts in the NT, I don't think that we worship a God who makes our salvation dependent on our ability to sort out the intricacies of politics from the Middle Ages, or that I will be damned for ending up in the wrong church due to not having learned Latin, Greek, and theology well enough to understand the Filioque debate and come to the correct theological conclusion.

All of this presupposes that I seek the truth with sincerity. I do think that when considering these matters it is possible for me to end up in sin due to my own arrogance, or a worship of worship itself, or a worship of tradition, or a worship of institutions, or (most of all) through lack of charity. But I believe the idea that salvation is a complex puzzle that must be solved accurately by parsing monumental amounts of information that would take many PhDs in history, theology, philosophy, Latin, Greek, and patristics to even begin to understand is a wrong one.

Nor ought we to believe that the goal is simply to belong to the correct Church, as if that is enough. Even Judas did that.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
You don't get it, do you? You cannot have two "truths" that oppose each other.

Immaculate Conception. True (Catholic) or False (Orthodox)? It cannot be both.
Indulgences. True (Catholic) or False (Orthodox)? It cannot be both.
Papal Supremacy. True (Catholic) or False (Orthodox)? It cannot be both.
Papal Infallibility. True (Catholic) or False (Orthodox)? It cannot be both.
Filioque Clause. True (Catholic) or False (Orthodox)? It cannot be both.
Purgatory. True (Catholic) or False (Orthodox)? It cannot be both.
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
... there are non-doctrinal practices which have been elevated to almost the level of dogma, such as celibate priests, non-leavened bread in the Eucharist, making children wait for the Eucharist, etc.


AND

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
You know, one thing that has puzzled and intrigued me over the last many years of my studies of the Christian faith is this: we see miracles happening in all branches of belief. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. I sometimes think that God is more interested in and blesses those who love Him with their whole heart than extreme doctrinal precision. What do you think?

Are you one and the same person?

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
The Church - and I am speaking of the united Church before Rome left - NEVER taught these things.
Since Rome "left," is it that Rome now needs to return?

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
This is what happens when you start digging deep into history rather than accepting what the preacher or priest says.
Still depends on who is writing the history, and then, historians need not be theologians.

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
In addition, looking at the idea of an "indefectible" Church, I almost spit my coffee all over the monitor one morning. The Roman Catholic Church has been anything but indefectible. When I started my historic research regarding Apokatastasis, I discovered a church in Rome that mangled the interpretation of the Greek Scriptures in order to come up with the idea of a burning hell of torment. The "indefectible church" has made serious errors in the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures.
I think you mean infallible not "indefectible"; best to know what you're denying.

What specific scripture? What translations, Orthodox vs Catholic? What doctrinal errors?

"... mangled the interpretation of the Greek Scriptures in order to come up with the idea..." [emphasis added] So, intentional, a deception?

Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 37
Likes: 3
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Posts: 37
Likes: 3
Goodbye my friends

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 434
Likes: 4
Originally Posted by ajk
Are you one and the same person?

You should have said to yourself, "This is one very confused person trying to figure out chaos."

I have been told for the greater majority of my life that truth is important, that those who don't hold to the truth will wind up in hell forever, etc. etc. etc.

How important is truth? Judging from how God permits and performs miracle through people who hold to various "truths," sometimes I think it doesn't matter at all, other than the basic truth we must hold to as found in the Nicene Creed.

How would you respond to this confusion?

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
Originally Posted by ajk
Are you one and the same person?

You should have said to yourself, "This is one very confused person trying to figure out chaos."
I see Newman's "difficulties" not your "chaos."

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
I have been told for the greater majority of my life that truth is important, that those who don't hold to the truth will wind up in hell forever, etc. etc. etc.

How important is truth?
Very important: Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice." (John 18:37 RSV)

As to who "will wind up in hell forever, etc. etc. etc" and why, God is the judge.

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
Judging from how God permits and performs miracle through people who hold to various "truths,"
John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. (Mark 9:38-40 RSV)

God makes unexpected choices. Consider this: The designation Messiah, the Anointed, Christos (Christ) is a theologically loaded term. In the Old Testament, who are the only two people referred to by name as His, that is, the Lord's (YHWH's) Anointed, the Lord's Messiah?

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
sometimes I think it doesn't matter at all, other than the basic truth we must hold to as found in the Nicene Creed.
It matters; the Creed at the very least.

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
How would you respond to this confusion?
Again, after Newman, don't insist that difficulties become doubts.I also keep close to me this by St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1a.1.8.
Quote
Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

Cum enim fides infallibili veritati innitatur, impossibile autem sit de vero demonstrari contrarium, manifestum est, probationes, quae contra fidem inducuntur, non esse demonstrationes, sed solubilia argumenta.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,207
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
And Thomas Aquinas disagreed with him. The specialness of the Panagia is that she chose of Her own free will to eschew sin and thus was Immaculate, not that She was given a special gift by God.
If She is conceived immaculately, then she is not a regular human being, which affects our whole soteriology.
Adam and Eve, in the biblical account in Genesis, were not conceived at all. Nor was Adam made and Eve fashioned in a state of sin. Is Adam, is Eve, "not a regular human being"? As to Aquinas, see my post in a previous thread that discussed this topic.

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
The flesh of Jesus is something other than the flesh of a normal human being.
Only if your conditional statement, "If She is conceived immaculately, then she is not a regular human being," is correct, which it is not.

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
Furthermore, it takes away from Her glory. The glory of the Theotokos is that She, but just like us and subject to all the temptations we are subject to, said a loud and emphatic "NO" to them.
What does that have to do with her conception? Since the Catholic Church holds her to be "a regular human being," that is a real human being, a descendant of Adam, as was Jesus, she did not lose her so-called "free-will," liberum arbitrium, better understood as self-determination, αὐτεξουσία (autexousia; AUTEXOUSIA, W. Telfer, The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume VIII, Issue 1, April 1957, Pages 123–129.)

Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
And finally, if God would do that for Her, then why not for the whole human race, as I heard one Orthodox commentator ask. I think that a fair question.
Since you ask, I find it to be an extremely uninformed and manipulative question. Did he also ask regarding the privilege of the Mary's Dormition: "if God would do that for Her, then why not for the whole human race"?

And it is hubris for him to ask that. Why would the Orthodox limit the way God can save? Each person is unique -- there's a lot of very good Orthodox theology on the uniqueness of the person, e.g. Met. John Zizioulas. The Catholic Church holds, CCC 1257
Quote
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
[emphasis added]

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,882
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,882
Likes: 24
Quote
Originally Posted by Edward H (Irish_Ruthenian)
The flesh of Jesus is something other than the flesh of a normal human being.

Christ is in our midst!!

This is a statement that is usually made by some Evangelicals who want to make the role of the Theotokos in salvation history nothing. It is akin to one I read where Christ went through her body like water goes through a pipe: taking nothing from the Theotokos but making her irrelevant. There are arguments I have read that counter that. Basically, if Christ does not have flesh like ours, then He is not "like us in all things but sin." And if He is not, then the whole of our salvation via His Passion falls apart.

Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, 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 - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5