Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Question for Freeper Catholics
1/27/04 | LS

Posted on 01/27/2004 3:18:34 PM PST by LS

I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:

1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?

2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?

3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?

4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?

KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 721-738 next last
To: Havoc
Havoc, you haven't given a single valid argument yet. Old Reggie has been following the rules of a debate -- staying factual. You haven't. Instead, all I read are a variant on "I say so, and you're wrong and your mamma..." -- no proof, no evidence, just propaganda handed out.
601 posted on 02/01/2004 2:27:07 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
The Vatican only became cautious about it's claims when they came to the realization that it isn't the dark ages anymore and people actually are paying attention to their largely baseless claims.

Provide Facts instead of baseless allegations, otherwise you jsut sound shrill
602 posted on 02/01/2004 2:36:02 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die; Havoc
I'll be fair conservative -- there were acts committed by both. But that tale of ripping babies from Mother's wombs is a standard tale used to show how barbaric the foe is. If it IS true, then the enemy is barbaric. But if it isn't, it shows that the propagandist is grasping at straws. And that's what havoc is trying to defend. Havoc, show the proof that Jesuits actually committed those atrocities. you Can't, because they never did commit them, it was pure Protestant PRINCEs who created that rumour because the Jesuits were trying to prevent the Protestant PRINCES from holdign BOTH temporal and Spiritual power, reducing their populations to serfdom.
603 posted on 02/01/2004 2:39:15 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Even worse, when Protestants persecuted Catholics after the Reformation, they routinely destroyed relics, altars, tabernacles. Disgusting.

Henry the VIIIth just looted the stuff -- he declared himself head of the church so he could make more money and divorce as many times as he wanted to. Cromwell, now he used churches as stables, put animals in them, his soldiers cut out the eyes of Christ's statues (yes they were just statues not God, but to do such an act is to show that they didn't respect the piety to the same God they, ostensibly, worshipped) and other things.
604 posted on 02/01/2004 2:41:41 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; Conservative til I die; polemikos; SoothingDave; redgolum
I asked: Answer this: do you have proof about JEsuits ripping children from their mother's wombs?
Havoc said : Why? I didn't offer it. Answer this: Do I care

More backtracking. Havoc can't seem to prove a single one of his propaganda pieces, so he's resorting to the "I told you so, nyaa, nyaa" policy. Childish.

You can't prove any of the dirt you've tried to dish against the Church
605 posted on 02/01/2004 2:45:08 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; Conservative til I die; polemikos; SoothingDave
"If you can't convince them, confuse them". That seems to be Havoc's philosophy. Sheesh Havoc, you don't provide any proof for your propaganda statements and expect people to believe you have something worthwhile??
606 posted on 02/01/2004 2:47:47 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
The Trade language of the world was Greek

A factual error. The trade language of the world was NOT Greek. GReek had decayed to only Anatolia. This was the Roman era, the Greeks had been conquered. The language of commerce in the area of Israel-Syria-Jordan down to Egypt was Aramaic.
Christ MAY have known Greek (can't prove it one way or the other), but the odds are pretty low -- why would he need it? He would know the scriptural language of Hebrew, he would know the common language of Aramaic, he may have known Latin. But why on earth would he have wanted to know Greek??? The Sadduccees may have known Greek because greek philosophy influenced them, but Christ supported Pharisee thought more (they did believe in an after-life unlike the Sadduccees)
607 posted on 02/01/2004 2:52:40 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Or considering your clergy's position that Christ is God, you wish to offer that God can't speak Greek. LOL. Boy this stuff is boring.

More "Arguments" from you. Christ was wholly human and wholly divine. To lead humans he would have accepted the limitations of being human -- or are you playing the temptor during the days in the desert? One of hte limitations would be the languages known to him.
608 posted on 02/01/2004 2:58:03 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
The only thing the Vatican fears is that some of it's followers might wise up as they did in Boston

Proof Herr Goebbels?
609 posted on 02/01/2004 2:58:51 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

Try reading the words. Are you afraid?

Nope, try understanding the words....
610 posted on 02/01/2004 3:00:19 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

Too bad the New Testament was written in Greek isn't it?

Matthew and Mark are thought to have been written in Aramaic -- they were aimed at a Jewish audience. Luke was GReek and wrote in Greek to a Greek audience in Anatolia. John's Gospel was written in AD 90, when the majority of Christians were Gentiles, Greeks in the Greek states around Anatolia.
611 posted on 02/01/2004 3:02:52 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
Much RC dogma is absolute and has not changed since several hundred years after the founding of the church. Further, Roman Catholics and Protestants agree on many, many things (including most of the "main things" of Christianity) and I consider them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now, that's a good view. It'd be good to admit that the basics are the same, with all being Christian.
612 posted on 02/01/2004 3:04:16 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
We are soldiers from the same army practicing sparring with one another so that we know how to fight when we meet the real enemy.

Quite correct -- the enemy isIaslam.
613 posted on 02/01/2004 3:05:41 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
That's great and all, but what does that have to do with what language Christ spoke. And in a way, aren't you contradicting your own argument that Christ also spoke Latin? By your logic, because the Bible was in Greek, He couldn't have spoken Latin to Pilate. He would have spoken Greek, according to that logic.

Hell, you might as well say Jesus spoke English because that's what is in our Bibles now. Hint: It's a translation.

Quite correct -- God is omniscient, but to communicate to mere man he would have spoken in the language they would have known -- Aramaic, with probably a bit of Hebrew tossed in. Pontius Pilate, like every good Roman governor would have known a bit of the local language and would have a translator as well.
614 posted on 02/01/2004 3:10:10 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
How long ago was it that someone here stated that while Muslims and Roman Catholics worship the same God,

Slmc, I view as a heresy against Christianity (As a whole). The Koran (If you read it) is a mish-mash of Christianity, Arabic beliefs and bits of Zoroastrianism. It was a good way to get a nationalistic feeling building up and to form an Arabic Empire. ButIslam does not worhip the same god asChristianity. Protestants and Orthodox (RC + Eastern Orthodox) are definitely in ONE camp versus the slamic camp.
615 posted on 02/01/2004 3:13:41 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 576 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; OLD REGGIE; sandyeggo; Salvation; Cronos
I stumbled across this and thought it was both useful and fun. The book that contains this info: "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" is well regarded. From:

Who is the Rock of Matthew 16:18?

Is it the Lord Jesus? Is it St. Peter? Is it Peter’s faith? Or yet someone or something else?

The Biblical Passage in Question

From Several Protestant Translations

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it”
-- New International Version (A footnote in the NIV to the word “Peter” says “Peter means rock”.)
“And I say also vnto thee, That thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it”
-- 1611 King James Version (The 1611 edition of the KJV has a marginal cross-reference at Matthew 16:18 to John 1:42)
“And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros — a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra — a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it]”
-- Amplified Bible
(A footnote in the AB to the word “Peter” says “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)”)

The Position of Some Protestants

Some Protestants, especially those of a more anti-Catholic bent, try to make hay out of the distinction between the Greek words petros and petra in the original written version of Matthew 16:18. Petros, they say, means “stone” or “piece of rock” or, even merely “pebble”; petra, on the other hand, they say means “large rock” or “boulder”. So, they conclude, the two words cannot refer to the same person or thing. Moreover, they say (quite correctly) that petros is masculine and petra is feminine; so, they conclude, the male Peter could not have been the referent of the feminine term. And, therefore, Simon could not have been the Rock.

The Predominant Catholic Position

As Explained and Defended by Numerous Protestant Biblical Scholars

The following quotations regarding the meaning of Matthew 16:18 come from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess. (This book is referred to below as JPK.)

To all of the Protestant biblical scholars quoted below, a traditional Catholic interpretation of this scripture — that Simon is the rock — is quite acceptable. Some of them explain clearly why — in their professional opinion — the anti-Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is mistaken.

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church,
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.
New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel
According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14


Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (emphasis added)
“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58 JPK pages 16-17


Donald A. Carson III (Ph.D., University of Cabridge)
Baptist and research professor of the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18


John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19


John A. Broadus
Baptist author

(two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”.... Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20


J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative "this", whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30


Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon's nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.
The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32


David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34


Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.
The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34


Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37
616 posted on 02/01/2004 3:19:08 AM PST by polemikos ("To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" - John Henry Newman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Havoc; polemikos; SoothingDave
HAvoc said the usual propaganda...

Hmmmm... First you say that scripture MUST be the basis of all facts (true). THen, when someone shows plenty of evidence from scripture to show that YOU, Havoc, are wrong, you claim it to be propaganda???

What proof have YOU, Havoc, shown? Nothing but baseless allegations and propaganda lies.
617 posted on 02/01/2004 3:20:39 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: polemikos
So, the Catholic interpretation is supported by the linguistic, syntactic, contextual, historic, symbolic, and scriptural evidence. Your interpretation rests solely on a flawed translation. Which way to go, which way to go? I think I'll stick with the literal Catholic interpretation.

Havoc prefers conjecture to facts...
618 posted on 02/01/2004 3:22:55 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Proof Herr Goebbels?

Ooh. That names does seem somehow appropriate. ;-)
619 posted on 02/01/2004 3:24:40 AM PST by polemikos ("To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" - John Henry Newman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Gnostics had some good ideas

I'll take THAT as ignorance or acceptance of Gnostic teaching. THe Gnostics believed that the world was an illusion.

They believed that in the beginnign there was a god and the Universe is part of that god's body. The god created sub-gods who created sub-gods. One of those sub-gods was yhwh -- the God of the Bible. So, it says that the Christian God is a false God, a Pretender. Next it says that the way to escape this world of illusion is to become one with the main divinity whose body forms the universe.

Sound familiar? WEll it is Hindu belief twisted around. Hindu's believe in Maya, the illusion, that is the world. They also believe that there is NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CREATOR AND HIS CREATION, unlike Christians.

They also believe that in the end we lose our individuality and get subsumed into the Creator. That is NOT Christian belief.

Gnosticism cannot be reconciled with Christianity. It is NOT Christianity.

Coptics are NOT Gnostics

About the different Eastern Churchs

The Orthodox Church now counts about a hundred millions of members. It is the main body of Eastern Christendom, that remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Calcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. It remained in union with the West till the great schism of Photius and then that of Caerularius, in the ninth and eleventh centuries. In spite of the short-lived reunions made by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439), this Church has been in schism ever since.

the great Orthodox communion consists of sixteen independent Churches.


The Nestorians are now only a pitiful remnant of what was once a great Church. Long before the heresy from which they have their name, there was a flourishing Christian community in Chaldea and Mesopotamia. According to their tradition it was founded by Addai and Mari (Addeus and Maris), two of the seventy-two Disciples. The present Nestorians count Mar Mari as the first Bishop of Ctesiphon and predecessor of their patriarch.

Nestorius, who gave his name to the Nestorian heresy, was born at Germanicia, in Syria Euphoratensis (date unknown); died in the Thebaid, Egypt, c. 451. He was living as a priest and monk in the monastery of Euprepius near the walls, when he was chosen by the Emperor Theodosius II to be Patriarch of Constantinople in succession to Sisinnius

Within a few days of his consecration Nestorius had an Arian chapel destroyed, and he persuaded Theodosius to issue a severe edict against heresy in the following month. He had the churches of the Macedonians in the Hellespont seized, and took measures against the Qrartodecimans who remained in Asia Minor

Nestorius was a disciple of the school of Antioch, and his Christology was essentially that of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both Cilician bishops and great opponents of Arianism. Both died in the Catholic Church. Diodorus was a holy man, much venerated by St. John Chrysostom. Theodore, however, was condemned in person as well as in his writings by the Fifth General Council, in 553. In opposition to many of the Arians, who taught that in the Incarnation the Son of God assumed a human body in which His Divine Nature took the place of soul, and to the followers of Apollinarius of Laodicea, who held that the Divine Nature supplied the functions of the higher or intellectual soul, the Antiochenes insisted upon the completeness of the humanity which the Word assumed. Unfortunately, they represented this human nature as a complete man, and represented the Incarnation as the assumption of a man by the Word. The same way of speaking was common enough in Latin writers (assumere hominem, homo assumptus) and was meant by them in an orthodox sense; we still sing in the Te Deum: "Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem", where we must understand "ad liberandum hominem, humanam naturam suscepisti". But the Antiochene writers did not mean that the "man assumed" (ho lephtheis anthropos) was taken up into one hypostasis with the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. They preferred to speak of synapheia, "junction", rather than enosis, "unification", and said that the two were one person in dignity and power, and must be worshipped together. The word person in its Greek form prosopon might stand for a juridical or fictitious unity; it does not necessarily imply what the word person implies to us, that is, the unity of the subject of consciousness and of all the internal and external activities. Hence we are not surprised to find that Diodorus admitted two Sons, and that Theodore practically made two Christs, and yet that they cannot be proved to have really made two subjects in Christ. Two things are certain: first, that, whether or no they believed in the unity of the subject in the Incarnate Word, at least they explained that unity wrongly; secondly, that they used most unfortunate and misleading language when they spoke of the union of the manhood with the Godhead -- language which is objectively heretical, even were the intention of its authors good.

Nestorius, as well as Theodore, repeatedly insisted that he did not admit two Christs or two Sons, and he frequently asserted the unity of the prosopon.

This was the Persian church. the Persians who appeared at the Holy Places as pilgrims or at Constantinople must have seemed like Catholics on account of their hatred to the Monophysites, who were the great enemy in the East. The official teaching of the Nestorian Church in the time of King Chosroes (Khusran) II (died 628) is well presented to us in the treatise "De unione" composed by the energetic monk Babai the Great, preserved in a MS. From which Labourt has made extracts (pp. 280-87). Babai denies that hypostasis and person have the same meaning. A hypostasis is a singular essence (ousia) subsisting in its independent being, numerically one, separate from others by its accidents. A person is that property of a hypostasis which distinguishes it from others (this seems to be rather "personality" than "person") as being itself and no other, so that Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul. As hypostases Peter and Paul are not distinguished, for they have the same specific qualities, but they are distinguished by their particular qualities, their wisdom or otherwise, their height or their temperament, etc. And, as the singular property which the hypostasis possesses is not the hypostasis itself, the singular property which distinguishes it is called "person". It would seem that Babai means that "a man" (individuum vagum) is the hypostasis, but not the person, until we add the individual characteristics by which he is known to be Peter or Paul. This is not by any means the same as the distinction between nature and hypostasis, nor can it be asserted that by hypostasis Babai meant what we should call specific nature, and by person what we should call hypostasis. The theory seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to justify the traditional Nestorian formula: two hypostases in one person. As to the nature of the union, Babai falls on the Antiochene saying that it is ineffable, and prefers the usual metaphors -- assumption, inhabitation, temple, vesture, junction-to any definition of the union. He rejects the communicatio idiomatum as involving confusion of the natures, but allows a certain "interchange of names", which he explains with great care.

The Persian Christians were called "Orientals", or "Nestorians", by their neighbours on the west. They gave to themselves the name Chaldeans; but this denomination is usually reserved at the present day for the large portion of the existing remnant which has been united to the Catholic Church.

620 posted on 02/01/2004 3:42:07 AM PST by Cronos (W2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 589 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 721-738 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson