Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
***Are there special decoder glasses needed to read your canons or are they plain to all who read them?***
We bring the Good News of Christ to all the world. To the receptive, to the heathen and to those who would spit in our face and pluck our beards.
The Romanists is a sarcastic comeback to a Romanist label applied by a Reformed in a prior post.
I normally do not self-identify as Romanist; I am Catholic, a follower of the Church of Christ created at Pentecost. I’m sorry for the confusion.
I have just finished replying.
***Trying to understand what Roman Catholics believe is like trying to pick up unset jello with your bare hands.
It seems like each one of them has their own understanding, which may or may not marry up with what Rome teaches on any given topic.***
Read the Catechism. This is our doctrine. No jello.
From beginning to end. Start with Paul's description of Abrahams faith in the book of Galations.
Oh, yes, I forgot, everything has to go through +Paul. With some Christians, he is the prism through which everything is interpreted, even Christ's own words. Where is "grace alone" (even "faith alone") in the Beatitudes? Or are they not important because +Paul doesn't interpret them? Why not change the name from Christians to Paulines?.
Where does the OT, not Galatians, say we are saved by grace alone?
The Church is the teacher. Not Luther’s milkmaids.
***Why not change the name from Christians to Paulines?. ***
How about Paulistinians? Paulistas? Paulocrats?
The point is that St. Paul is very important to the doctrine, critical for saving the infant Church. But the misunderstandings of Paul should not be the substitute for the Gospel message of Jesus.
Well -- then just rip all those Pauline Epistles out of that Bible of yours and be done with it.
Tha's one way to do it. The other way is to interpret Paul through the Gospels (which Christians believe are the living words of Chirst). Now, which is more important? Christ or Paul? Obviously, some think Paul.
Yes, exactly. But when we speak of "Paul" we should not confuse him with Saint Paul. The former is a deformed Saint Paul of the Reformation. "Paul" becomes the standard through which everything, even Chirst, is deformed.
The Beatitudes have nothing to do with “works-based salvation”, they are a description of the character of one who has inherited the “Kingdom of God”.
Ephesians 1:3-4,”Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.”
The attributes described in the Beatitudes are similar to what Paul calls the “fruit” of the Spirit. Fruit of the Spirit =Visible Growth in Jesus Christ. Galatians 5:22-23, they are: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance. These are not individual “fruits” from which we pick and choose. Rather, the fruit of the Spirit is one ninefold “fruit” that characterizes all who truly walk in the Holy Spirit. Collectively, these are the fruits that all Christians should be producing in their new lives with Jesus Christ. It is a physical manifestation of a Christian’s transformed life.
Does not Christ say to the rich man to sell everything he has and follow Him?
Look at the context of the teaching. The rich man has said he has fulfilled all of the law and Jesus does not dispute that. He has done all of the works of the law, but his problem was he was relying on them and his riches. Jesus is telling him not to rely on works or riches but trust in Jesus; sell all that you have been leaning on and trust in Me. That’s faith, not works.
Mark 10:17-27, “And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.”
No one is to know when one works the works of righteousness, not even the one doing them. So how then can one intentionally work for one’s salvation?
Mt 6:3, “But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:”
Jesus teaches that the works of righteousness are done intuitively by those who inherit the Kingdom, not intentionally to inherit the Kingdom.
Matt. 25:31-46, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
Where does Jesus of the Gospels teach Deformed Pauline theology of the Reformers that we are saved by grace alone?
John 3, and especially 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
So then Paul was lying when he wrote that the Gospel he preaches is the Gospel that he received from none other than Jesus Christ himself:
"I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."[Galatians 1:11-12]
So is Paul lying??? How come all the other apostles and disciples of his day don't feel the way that you do??? Were they all wrong too???
Yes, recommendations are that, but they are recommendations made by a joint commission of Orthodox and Catholic bishops, backed by both Churches.
Are you suggesting that Catholic bishops are openly promoting what the Church (according to you) considers heresy?
New Advent, contrary to the way you present here, intentionally or not, is not the official mouth piece of the Catholic Church. It is no more official than Wikipedia.
Catholic dogma affirms Filioque. Period
Yes it does, and the Council of Lyons (1274) condemns those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.”
This condemnatuion is entirely based on the Latin meaning of the word to proceed which is fundamentally different from the Greek term used in the Symbol of Faith of 381 AD.
If you had read the whole Conference I linked you would have understood, but since you choose ignorance of the subject you can continue making erroneous conclusions.
The linguistic divide between the East and the West was complete by the 5th century. By the 8th century, not even the Latin bishops knew enough Greek to be able to read it comprehensively.
Historical facts point to the growing division between the East and the West due to the fact that Latin is not equivalent to Greek. St. Augustine made serious theological erros by incorrectly translating from Greek. The Filioque is a serious misunderstanding based on the linguistic constraints of Latin vis a vis Greek.
The Greek word translated as "proceeds" has an "ek" (equivalent to English "ex"), which unmistakeably means from, an origin. The Latin words procedere has no intrinsic origin in its meaning.
The Creed, as it was originally devised specifically and unambiguously establishes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as the origin, as the Father is not only the source of all thing, but of the divinity as well.
The Orthodox Church does not, and never did, deny that the Holy Spirit goes from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Father, or that both the Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (which, in the words of Christ Himself, proceeds from [ekporeuetai] the Father [cf John 15:26—which you choose to ignore, conveniently]) on the Divine Economy of our salvation, but not eternally.
The eternal procession of the Spirit has to do with His own existence and that is only from the Father, lest there be a double origin; as regard His existence, in the word of +Gregory Palamas, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. To the best of my knowledge, the Catholic Church teaches the very same thing—one origin. This is what has been taught from the beginning and this is what the Church teaches to this day.
Well, which is it? Is Filioque an "honest disagreement" or a "shared belief?"
It's both.
Does the Holy Ghost proceed from both God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son...
In the Divine Economy of our salvation (in finite time), from both. But, as far as the origin of His existence is concerned, the HS eternally proceeds from the Father.
... as Catholics and Protestants have believed for nearly [20] centuries?
The Protestants were not around for 20 centuries. The Latins officially professed the same "erroneous" Creed as the Greeks, without the filioque, for the first 11 centuries. That's what made communion between the Greeks and Latins possible, that's what made it One Church.
New Advent begs to differ
Apparently the Catholic Church does not abide by the New Advent, Dr. E. If it did, then the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome would be in "error" (heresy) for omitting the Filioque, as they do, and couldn't be in communion with Rome!
Because again, NEW ADVENT on Filiogue denounces the Orthodox error
How can the absence of the Filioque in the original Symbol be an "error" when it was never there to begin with?
ON NEW ADVENT:
I don’t even remember what this thread is about anymore, but I’ll wade in to straighten this mess out about one of the most annoying web quirks around: New Advent
>> Apparently New Advent thinks it can be trusted and thinks it’s still Catholic dogma — which it is, and rightly so. <<
No, New Advent think it can get a lot of content on line for next to zero cost. So who’s New Advent? Just a layman named Kevin Knight.
New Advent was largely a LAYMAN’S encyclopedia, written based on what was available to those layman. It wasn’t a work of great scholarship; it wasn’t apologetic; it wasn’t authoritative. The relevance of it being old is simply because it indicates how limited the information going into it was. In the 1909 America, there simply wasn’t a lot of Catholic scholarship. There was no internet, and frankly, they didn’t even have a lot of great works translated into English from Latin, Aramaic, or whatever else.
It’s what is on-line because of copyright laws: it’s the public domain so an amateurish web author got it up cheap. It’s not on-line because of its excellence. And you get what you pay for. It’s useful: it’s got a great library of documents that’s much more accessible than the Vatican web site’s.
ON THE LARGER ISSUE:
Without reading through the whole post to make sure of the context, it seems like New advent’s assertion that the filioque represents Catholic doctrine is quite very sound; it IS part of the “Profession of Faith.” It seems to me much of the medieval controversy over it was that it seemed to signify Western influence. Is the filioque infallibly declared? No. But not everything that may be in error might be in error. Most doctrines aren’t infallible only because they’ve never been challenged.
Frankly, the filioque issue is about the only one where I have trouble respecting the (sectarian) Orthodox view. To anathematize the West because it holds something to be true would seem to require it being demonstrated to be false. And while the Orthodox make a great argument that it wasn’t demonstrated to be true, their seems to be utter silence on demonstrating it to be false, misleading, or something like that.
I put “sectarian” in parentheses, because I mean to refer only to those Orthodox who treat Photius’ excommunication of the West as if it were infallible. I understand that the Greeks recognize a potential way of using the original Greek word in a way that the Latin words cannot be used, but which might pose some theological troubles. The Latin church has responded with, “yes, but you do realize that’s not what we mean when we say that, don’t you?” I think some sort of accompanying clarification of what is meant should resolve everything, and a mutual recognition that the Latins aren’t heretics for stating what they state, but that the Greeks have good cause to not to do so.
This is an interesting statement. I wonder, would you have identified yourself as a Catholic if you lived during St. Augustine's time?
If that were in fact the case then the Romanist Church would not have needed and continue to need reforming. As it is, the gospel of the Romanist Church is it’s manmade, non-relevatory traditions and rituals. That’s not the good news of Christ.
***pluck our beards***
Ya, but you like it because it gives you a martyr complex.
I think if you read my responses to Dr. E you will find some of the reasons the Greeks cannot agree to the use of the filioque.
The Symbol (Creed) expresses the eternal attributes of God; it does not address the roles of the Divine Hypistases in real time in the Divine Economy of our salvation, but deals with the eternal origins of both the Son and the Spirit.
The Catholic Church teaches the same thing no matter whether we speak of the Latin or Greek side, namely that ther is one but one, eternal origin, God the Father, for both the Son and the Spirit.
The Latin meaning of the word procedere is not limited to the oriign but also includes the temporal hypostatic economy of the Spirit, potenytially leading some to teach double origin (as apparently the reformed seem to be doing).
The issue with the Symnbol is also canonical. And by that I mean legal. We cannot arbitrarily add a black star to the American Flag to signify that the nation was built by non-whites, for example, a statement that is intrisically true but also wrong because thew white stars do not represent white people.
Yet we can all appreciate the fact that such an idea may be appealing to some. Such a change, even if it were supported in some parts of the country, cannot be made without the Congress and without the President approving it. It would require a constitutional amendement to do so.
No such constitutional amendment was done by the ecclesial congress (ecumenical council) that would have made Filioque a valid addition to the Creed (and for a good theological reason it was never contemplated). You can argue that, after the Schism, the west enacted such a change in what they called "ecumenical" councils but reason should tell you that this will never hold water.
We cannot be in interocmmunion as long as our porfession of faith is different, even by one word, as the American Symbol of the Nation is not official if it has one black star in it no matter how much it may make sense.
If we allow such a change without proper authoirty (Congress, President), then anyone wold be free to add whatever color they choose to any number of stars, or change the number of stripes on the Flag, etc.
That does not mean that such a change symbolizes some truth; it simply means that the change is unauthorized.
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.