Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I can quite easily post St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Eucharist - about 107 AD, or St. Justin the Martyr (150 AD), St. Irenaesu (180 AD) and St. Tertullian (200 AD) on BOTH the real presence of the Eucharist, and Mary's special role as the New Eve, complimentary to the New Adam already found in the Scriptures for Christ (jo kus)
HD, jo is right on the button with this one. And Ignatius was a disicple of Apostle Peter, and was ordained bishop by the him. I am sure what he wrote was not something the Church did not already teach. You assertion about centures later is simply not true.
The Church never disagreed with either of the Fathers mentioned by jo kus. It merely asserted that she was Theotokos, the Birth-giver of God.
"by the him" = "by him" obviously, "You teaching" = "Your teaching" of course...
"The Church never disagreed with either of the Fathers mentioned by jo kus" -- what I mneant to say, of course, is that Tertullian was denounced later, but his early writings and teachings were orthodox.
The Jews certainly saw forgiving sins as a supernatural power, and if any "man" tried to do it, it was blasphemy. They hated Jesus for it. I sort of see your belief as God having delegated His sole authority on these matters to men. Not only that, but He also delegated the further delegation of that sole authority that God (used to?) have. If instead of going to confession, a Catholic just decided to confess his sins to God directly, would that "count"? :)
The Reformation went too far. It's one thing to want to reform perceived abuses within the community. It is quite another to leave the Church established by Christ to start another "church". There is absolutely no precedent for this anywhere in the Bible.
I suppose the way I see it is that what the Reformers did was 1/100th as radical as what the early Jews did when they converted to Christianity. While it might be true that Paul and Barnabas did not split over doctrine, it is an example of good Christians having differences and going their separate ways. That's what happened with the Reformation, albeit that it was over doctrine. We all still believe that Christ died for our sins and that salvation is through Christ alone, and through no one else.
I don't see God as giving the keys to anyone but Peter. Where does Christ give the keys of the Kingdom to anyone else?
Your whole theology has the exclusive keys of the Kingdom in only the hands of your leaders, hundreds of thousands of them or maybe millions across time. According to you, I think, God didn't give Peter one key, He gave him an infinite number of keys to be given out freely, but exclusively. This will go on until the second coming. God delegates away His authority to men.
Where does Scripture limit God's Word to the written format? I have asked this question over and over, but I have yet to hear an answer.
The answer is that I don't know that it says that anywhere in scripture. That is the answer. But, from your side, since when does anything need to be in scripture to be true? :) You believe in tons of things that are not in scripture. You are trying to have it both ways. I say that I do believe in sola scriptura as authority, and in the same breath I can say that I'm sure I would have no problem with anywhere from some to many things in Tradition. It's just in the cases when Tradition and scripture do not match, by plain reading, that I have "issues". :)
Read and heed, brother. This is the Gospel of Christ. Handed down through men. In the Scriptures, Paul is not saying the Gospel is from men. The Bible is part of that. If you don't believe the men who gave us the Bible, then you don't believe the teachings found within the Bible. Paul doesn't seem to agree with you - what was passed down to us is the Word of God, not the word of men. When you say you "follow God", are you sure about that??
Thank you for all the verses. I've never had any problem with the fact that the Apostles taught the truth. I also believe that the Apostles wrote down much of what they taught in writings that are now the Bible. I believe those are consistent. The huge disconnect, of course, is when Tradition is required to twist the meaning of scripture into something it doesn't say. That's what I don't understand.
How can a person say "I am saved by grace alone", then go back and say "I was never saved to begin with, because I didn't believe enough"???? Think about it. That is not Saved by Grace alone. Your salvation is now dependent upon how fervently you recited the Sinner's Prayer...
Because it's the grace that does the saving, not the words alone. A person to whom saving grace has not been given can say the sinner's prayer a thousand times. It would make no difference, he is still not saved, or "he was never saved to begin with". Since only God can have divine knowledge of who is saved, I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone saying the sinner's prayer, until there is evidence that he was, in fact, never saved. Salvation has zero to do with how fervently someone says the prayer. It has 100% to do with whether or not the person has been chosen of the elect and been given saving grace.
The Jews will still tell you that man cannot become God. But, we believe that God can become a man; with God everything is possible, and the new Testament clearly shows that the power to "bind and loosen" was given to +Peter and then to the rest of the Apostles. God's will.
"The huge disconnect, of course, is when Tradition is required to twist the meaning of scripture into something it doesn't say. That's what I don't understand."
But FK, that isn't what Holy Tradition does at all. A very long time ago, maybe on this thread but I doubt it, I wrote that Holy Tradition, what The Church always and everywhere believed, was the standard, the measuring stick if you will, by which the various writings "contending" for a place in the canon of the NT were measured. Once the canon was closed (and I don't mean by the tinkering the Reformers did with it)that canon and the various scriptures contained within it, became part of Holy Tradition, the highest part of it to be sure. But it achieved that status because its inspired nature became obvious since it was in complete accord with what The Church believed.
Of course it is. But for the maturing Christian, it is of secondary concern. I teach that "We are to become another Christ". That is the primary point of moral theology in Catholicism now. Those who love God and neighbors will automatically be going beyond the Law, fulfilling it especially through the Beatitudes. Following the commandments because we fear hell is no longer love.
Regards
Brother, we Catholics also consider the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs as saints. We mention them in our liturgy and refer to them often during our Old Testament readings. The Catechism also stresses their roles and the way we are to read the Old Testament in light of Christ, as St. Augustine said. I would agree, however, that few statues have been erected for OT figures, compared to NT and later saints in the Catholic West. I am aware that their are icons that are done in honor of the OT holy men and woman. I don't believe their is a sharp distinction between us here.
Regards
"Those who love God and neighbors will automatically be going beyond the Law, fulfilling it especially through the Beatitudes. Following the commandments because we fear hell is no longer love."
Oh, I agree 100%, especially with the last sentence. I agreed with what you first posted also. My point is merely that obedience to the commandments is always a part of theosis, whether it is in the effort to initially attain an indwelling of the Holy Spirit or in an effort to maintain the soul as a place for a continual indwelling of the Spirit. We agree; I'm just saying it a bit differently than you are.
Forgiving sins was clearly delegated to men, as I have related, in John's Gospel, and 2 Corinthians, and James. Jesus talks about the principle of it in Mark and Matthew. However, I think even this power is more a delegation of authority - God's authority has been delegated to visible men, rather than a supernatural power, such as levitation, or raising the dead. I believe God still works that power, but it is not based on the Apostolic Succession. By the way, Catholics CAN and DO confess our sins WITHOUT a priest. At every Mass, we, with the community, have our minor sins forgiven. Mortal sins, however, are reserved for forgiveness through the Apostles' Successors.
I suppose the way I see it is that what the Reformers did was 1/100th as radical as what the early Jews did when they converted to Christianity.
That is true except for one very important issue...Martin Luther never claimed to be God. Jesus Christ proved that He was through the resurrection. IF Luther had such credentials, the Reformation would have been validated in God's eyes. However, Christ is the end of all public revelation. God did not speak a new Gospel to Luther in contradistinction to Christ and His Church. Luther's Gospel was of his own making.
Your whole theology has the exclusive keys of the Kingdom in only the hands of your leaders, hundreds of thousands of them or maybe millions across time.
The Keys are only given to the Pope - there has been some 250 over 2000 years, not millions.
God delegates away His authority to men.
God doesn't "delegate away His authority"! In Revelation, Jesus still has a key! Look at it this way... When you leave on vacation, you give your neighbor a spare key. That person has authority over your house while you are away. Yet, you still have ultimate authority. Your neighbor doesn't own your house! When you return, you have your own key, AND you will hold your neighbor accountable for the care of your house. Christ will do EXACTLY the same thing to His pastors that He has left behind until His victorious second coming.
You believe in tons of things that are not in scripture.
As do you, I presume. Chemistry, biology, astronomy, history of the world after 100 AD. All outside of the realm of the Bible, yet TRUE. As to when Tradition and Scripture don't "match", I would tend to agree. One must be wrong - either the interpretation of the Scripture OR the Tradition is not legitimate. The problem I see is that you hold to a narrow view of Scripture that is often times ANTI-Scriptural (such as everything must be written in the Bible, or we are saved by faith alone, or that a man can never fall away from salvation, or that Baptism does not save, and so forth). The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical. An example is Romans 3. Clearly, you believe Paul thinks that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God, none are righteous. WE interpret that passage differently, that Paul was not speaking universally, but was quoting the OT Psalms that the wicked will never turn to God. Frnakly, we believe that Protestantism has invented a theology that was not part of Christianity until the 1500's, so we reject it as misinterpretation of Scripture. Of course, you claim the opposite. Thus, the need for an authority outside of yourself.
The huge disconnect, of course, is when Tradition is required to twist the meaning of scripture into something it doesn't say.
As we have been discussing, we have given explanations that are valid in interpreting verses. You disagree with our interpretations. But if you step back, they ARE valid. The thing is that you already have established who and what God is by reading Scripture through a particular lenses called Protestantism. By putting on another paradigm, you will have different attitudes toward theology. Put on the Jehovah Witness theology on, and you will think that the Bible says something else. Unfortunately, the Bible is not a systematic theology book. Clearly, it is not divided into subjects that lay down in plain language what we are to believe on EVERY subject, like a Catechism would. Thus, people can believe they hold to the "true" Bible teachings, when in fact, it comes down to interpretation. Plainly, the need for a valid authority to tell us what Scripture MEANS is necessary. We have one in the Catholic Church. It is Scriptural. It is Traditional. What can I say...
A person to whom saving grace has not been given can say the sinner's prayer a thousand times. It would make no difference, he is still not saved, or "he was never saved to begin with".
I agree, thus the Sinner's Prayer serves little purpose in discussing the day you were "saved" - because in five years, you might have to "take it back"...Oops, I guess I really didn't say it fervently enough - all of those good deeds were not from God...
Salvation has 100% to do with whether or not the person has been chosen of the elect and been given saving grace. Of course. So why does a Protestant KNOW he is saved after repeating it? Getting my drift?
Regards
Duh. This piece of wisdom is what every Catholic, Calvinist, Muslim, Jew, and quite possibly every Hindu and Buddhist would sign under. This is what God is. The silly part is that of all these people only the Calvinists, to my knowledge, would provide Bible quotes by the dosen in order to "biblically prove" something understood with or without the Bible, then pretend they somehow defended Calvin's theological hoax.
I personally wouldn't have made much about a lack of statues of OT figures, since for the most part, statues in Catholicism do not really play the same liturgical role that icons do in Orthodoxy, but you are right that they strike me as being rare.
My drawing of a contrast is based on a few other points.
First, I am unaware of ever encountering a Roman Catholic parish with an Old Testament figure as its patron (unless you count St John the Baptist or St. Joseph the Betrothed as Old Testament because of having died before the Resurrection.) They aren't overwhelmingly common in Orthodoxy, either, but one does regularly encounter them -- especially dedicated to St. Elijah, for some reason.
I also am unaware of a tradition in Roman Catholicism of giving Old Testament saints' names to newly baptized to be their patrons. Old Testament names have propagated pretty extensively through Orthodoxy, although often as the centuries have gone by, the saint being referred to has often shifted to a more recent one -- but this is true of New Testament names as well.
Nor have I noticed in looking at RC liturgical calendars that Old Testament figures are ever the primary commemoration of the day. Most of the Old Testament prophets have a primary commemoration in the Orthodox calendar, with full services of prayers to them.
I may be wrong about all of the above, and am happy to be corrected.
On another thread some time ago, a RC poster confirmed those things mentioned above, and said that in Catholicism, there was a definite distinction made -- and thought Orthodoxy's lack of a distinction was, if not outright incorrect, at least odd, from a Roman Catholic perspective. That poster may very well have been wrong. I certainly don't assume that everything I read on FR is correct, even when you are the one writing it! :-)
"I am not the first to make the observation that in Eastern Christian theology (except when under strong Western influence), there is no place for original guilt and this has significant implications for the understanding of the nature of man, the soul, and God."
This is very true. There is a significant place, however, for the effects of the ancestral sin, which brought death, corruption, and the tendency to sin into the world.
What St. John C. is speaking of in that passage is the act of the will in turning one's face toward or away from God. The "sudden" transformation of which he speaks is not the result of our will making the transformation, but the effect of opening oneself to receiving God's grace or cutting oneself off from it through an act of the will.
To a great extent, in this life, Orthodoxy would seem to indicate that our free choice is primarily restricted to an unending series of choices that will either turn us toward God or away from him.
In the next life, we certainly do not believe that this will be the case. There, we will have the freedom to choose between many goods, something of which we catch only glimpses in this life.
You left out that Catholic divorce/annulment rates are similar to any other Christian sect. Are you really going to argue that annulment is not equivalent to divorce? "Bill of Divorce" is bad, but annulment is OK? If this is your position, you see no conflict with the spirit of what Jesus was saying? Did Jesus speak of annulment?
One other thing I thought of that is a fun bit of information, since we are talking about Orthodoxy and Creation.
The Byzantine numbering of years is dated not from the Birth of Christ, but rather from the Creation of Adam.
Even today, one will find tradtional Russian calendars in particular that name not only the number of years since the birth of Christ, but the number of years since the creation of Adam.
Part of this is because the oldest Typikon (a book that orders our liturgical worship) in continuous use is the Sabbaite Typikon (Jerusalem Typikon), which is used in Slavic countries, in the Jerusalem Patriarchate, and on Mt. Athos and in other traditional Greek monastic institutions.
The fixing of the date of Pascha (Easter) in the Typikon is based on a 532 year cycle (because the solar cycle is 19 years and the lunar cycle is 28 days). The date assigned to the creation of Adam (and thus the beginning of this cycle) is Friday, March 1, 5508 B.C.
Which of course puts us right now in the year 7514, which actually began last September 1. March (actually Nissan, which usually roughly coincides with March) was kept as the first month of the year amongst the Hebrews, and likewise amongst Christians until the Indiction of Constantine -- since then September 1 has been the first day of the liturgical year in the Orthodox Church, whereas the West has kept January 1 (the pre-Christian Roman Indiction date) as the first day of the year.
As another interesting point of tradition passed on through the years, there is a tradition that Eve ate of the fruit on March 25th at the 6th hour (i.e. noon) -- which means that Adam and Eve lasted less than a month in Paradise before their fall. There is also a tradition that the Virgin Mary received the visitation of the Archangel at noon on March 25th (9 months before the Nativity of Christ) -- creating a direct parallel between the "yes" of the first Eve in response to the temptation of the fallen angel Satan and the "yes" of the second Eve to the angel sent by God.
None of this has anything to do with anything we are discussing, and there are some competing traditions on various of these points within Orthodoxy, but it popped into my head... Couldn't help it! :-)
You know very well that there is no defined complete doctrine among all Protestants. It would be great if there was, but such is the nature comparative freedom. I see your argument as being "how can the Spirit lead me to one truth and a Methodist to a completely different truth? We both can't be right." I understand that, but as I have said before I know the Spirit does not work in the fashion of complete revelation of doctrine to believers on day one. It is an individual process of sanctification.
In addition, there can be misperception of the part of the receiver. Ultimately, if you say "why should I believe you over a Methodist?", I agree, maybe you cannot know. All I can do is put up my beliefs against what the Bible says, and let the other denominations speak for themselves. :)
"Are you really going to argue that annulment is not equivalent to divorce?"
There are occasionally real annulments -- even the Orthodox Church will on rare occasions grant one (and Protestants and non-Christians, too, occasionally seek annulments, albeit through secular legal channels.)
But for the most part, you are correct that annulments in the Catholic church are just divorce called by another name. Were this not true, Catholic annulment rates shouldn't be much different from Orthodox or Protestant annulment rates -- unless Catholics are just far more prone to entering into illicit marriages than are Orthodox or Protestants.
Instead, Catholic annulment rates are far more comparable to non-Catholic divorce rates than they are to non-Catholic annulment rates. Which simply proves that these are really just "Catholic divorces."
Which is why in the Orthodox Church, we have ecclesiastical divorces. They exist for the same reason that they existed in Mosaic law -- the weakness of man and the hardness of our hearts. We face it and acknowledge that this particular marriage failed, and that repentance is called for.
But back to the point: where is God's sovereignty, if it is not God's will that man (certainly his chosen ones) not divorce, and yet it happens?
The alternative is to say that divorce is frequently very much God's will -- or that God doesn't have a will in this regard one way or another -- or that divorce is a sign that the people getting divorced are not among the elect.
Jo kus would have made a much better point had he simply said that it is clearly not God's will that divorce happen -- and yet it does, amongst everyone, Catholics included. Trying to favorably compare Catholics to non-Catholics in this regard is not particularly helpful in making the overall point that God's will is always good and never evil. It is man's rejection of God's will that creates the evil.
The reason for the quotes was to bring out a distinction between Western and Eastern Christian theology, not to ignore that men and women do commit sins. Here's the way John Meyendorff explains the Eastern perspective in Byzantine Theology:
There is indeed a consensus in Greek patristic and Byzantine traditions in identifying the inheritance of the Fall as an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than of sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality. The idea appears in Chrysostom, who specifically denies the imputation of sin to the descendants of Adam...sin remains for Maximus [the Confessor] a personal act, and inherited guilt is impossible. For him, as for the others, "the wrong choice made by Adam brought in passion, corruption, and mortality," but not inherited guilt.In Western theology, mankind indeed inherits guilt for the sin of Adam.The difference in perspective has other consequences as well. Most Western Christians have a juridical understanding of the Crucifixion. Christ receives the punishment that sinful mankind deserves. But I have not seen this juridical understanding of the Crucifixion emphasized in Eastern Christianity. Here is how Meyendorff puts it:
The point [of the Crucifixion] was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish the frightful cosmic reality of death, which held humanity under its usurped control and pushed it into the vicious circle of sin and corruption. And as Athanasius of Alexandria has shown...God alone is able to vanquish death, because He "alone has immortality." Just as original sin did not consist in an inherited guilt, so redemption was not primarily a justification, but a victory over death.The point of view on inherited guilt and the Crucifixion and many other topics has a somewhat different orientation in Eastern and Western Christian theology. And I think all Western Christians could deepen their understanding of Christianity by reading Eastern theology with an open mind.
Agrarian is hardly a "newbie" FK.
LOL! I can tell THAT! I just meant that since Agrarian said that he used to believe as I did and then converted, this means that at some point he WAS a newbie. Kolo said that he knew of others from my faith who also converted to Orthodox, so I just made the comparison. No insult intended! :)
In fact, the Church of the first 1,000 years had no special teaching about BEV Mary. Dealing with early heresies that questioned the divinity or even the humanity of Christ, the Church made a firm statement that Mary is Theotokos, the Mother of God. That is the extent of the Church doctrine of Mary, which remains the only doctrine of BEV Mary in the Orthodox Church.
OK, thanks for that. So, then the 1854 Catholic holding of infallible doctrine concerning Mary is something you do not agree with? I have noticed differences between you all and your Catholic brethren on Mary, so rather than try to start a food fight over specifics, :) why do these differences appear to be "no big deal"? I know you're not miles apart, but I just would have guessed that beliefs on Mary would be pretty important.
FK: "The latter God would stand by helplessly IF it turned out that every man chose to reject Him. Under this view, the Godhead "COULD" wind up alone in Heaven."
If it turned out, FK? You are either more naïve than I thought or just unwilling to admit that God is not limited in time and is not waiting for us to know His next move!
Well, I'm not sure how naive you think I am, :) but I'm not sure you're picking up on my intended point. That is, under your system, it is POSSIBLE for all to freely choose against God, so that COULD have happened. That's free will, right? (Under my system, that would NOT be possible.) Yes, God knows already what the end result is, so, according to my knowledge of your beliefs, as it really turns out, God is just extra lucky that anyone chose Him, because He doesn't move anyone to action. God gives some "guidance", but, as far as I can tell, the final decision is all in our hands according to your beliefs. Just as you say later "the decisions you make will determine your fate". I believe that God determines our fate.
The fact that He knows what will happen to you and when, does not mean He forces you to make those decisions; ...
I have always agreed that these are separate ideas and not casually linked. I also hold that while God does know who is of His elect, all of them will be saved.
Your decisions do not change His plan, FK, I have told you that a number of times. His Plan has already been accomplished; ...
On this much I would always agree with you completely. :)
---------------
Completely off this topic, at this second I am watching a History Channel show on the anti-Christ. In the mix of experts and authorities they have been going back to for knowledgeable comment is none other than Benny Hinn! You were more right than I knew! :)
Yes, exactly! One counter-question would be: "Could Adam have used his free will and chosen not to sin?" That is a thicket, isn't it? Of course if he COULD have and did make that choice, then there never would have been a need for Christianity. OTOH, God already knew Adam's choice, and created him exactly as He did, anyway.
Hmmm. It seems to me that if God has the power to create anyone or anything just as He pleases, and He chose to create Adam as He did, already knowing what Adam was going to do, then it must be that it pleased God, for His eternal purposes, that everything that Adam did, actually happened. Sounds like an ordination to me. :)
Is this a theological difference between Catholics and Orthodox? Unless I am misunderestimating, Jo would never make a statement like the section I bolded. Ever. Am I correct in assuming that you're using the other free choices as equal examples of Mary's choice? I find two corollaries to your statement very interesting. One, that Mary ever NEEDED to accept God, and two, that since she made a free will decision to do so, that there was an actual real time before that when she had not yet decided for God.
Kosta, when you say "on her own", now you're talking my language! :) That's one thing I have been trying to show as your belief all along. It does appear to be one peril of using the free will argument. How far do you carry it out? Is your position that men are born with enough goodness to freely choose God INDEPENDENTLY of any separate action, after birth, on our hearts by God?
As for Adam, he could have repented, but God knew he wouldn't. Yet God did not stop Him, not for His own purpose to see Adam fall and suffer, but because otherwise Adam would not be free, but a robot. ...
So, then to be absolutely clear, under your belief, God's love for us means that He prizes our freedom of choice for the eighty years or so that we "might" be on earth FAR AND ABOVE OVER where we will spend eternity. That is God's love for us.
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.