Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Salvationally speaking, since we are only talking about adult Baptism here, what is the difference between Baptism and a regular confession?
You believe that you were "restored" before all ages, way before you had any faith, or even existed on this earth, so your rationalization here is faulty.
I don't think so. From God's POV everything is already settled, but from our POV we are predestined for what WILL happen. Actual salvation and the Spirit indwelling are still events in time that take place. We believe that happens only to believers. If we thought that we were already restored in time before belief then our whole concept of original sin would be meaningless.
According to Caridnal John Newman in his Anglican days, anyway, the doctrine of treasure of merits is as old as the Creed:
27. [The main feature in modern Catholic teaching, as distinct from that of Antiquity, is the doctrine of the "Treasure of Merits," but the thing is in the Fathers, though not the phrase.This doctrine is founded on the article of the creed, the Communion of Saints, according to which the Christian body is like an expedition of pilgrims, helping each other with all their powers and in every way by temporal aid and spiritual, with prayers, good works, sufferings, as they go forward towards heaven, and that, up to the hour of death, when each shall stand by himself and "bear his own burden."
Beginning with this great doctrine, we teach that the Church has the prerogative of effecting the remission, in whole or part in each case, of such punishments as are still due for venial sin or for forgiven mortal sin, not only by the Eucharistic Sacrifice, &c., but also by setting against them, or rather, pleading with God, that infinite treasure of merits which our Lord has wrought out, first in His own Person, next through the grace which He has given to His saints. I say, "next," for this treasure consists essentially of His own merits, not of His Saints'; and includes theirs, only as it includes also those of good men on earth. Moreover, its benefits cannot be given in any measure, great or small, except in regard of the punishment of past sins, already repented of and forgiven.]
(footnotes to On the Prophetical Office of the Church: Vol 1)
Because I don't understand what "semi-pelagian" means. I suspect it is a way for our critics to accuse us of pelagianism despite the clear rejection of Pelagius and his teaching by Carthage.
What is semi-pelagianism?
He specifically accused the Latins of innovation for using unleavened bread. And you are right, I don;t think the Latins ever accused the East of heresy for using leavened bread.
I've never heard this before
The 9th century Pope Leo III, not Pope St. Leo (I) the Great (5th century). The former was asked by the Franks to include filioque into the Creed, which Leo III refused. In fact, he is the one who ordered silver plates containing the words of the Creed, without filioque, in Greek, mounted on the Vatican walls. But in responding to this request, he specifically mentions that he finds filioque theologically acceptable. I do not have a specific reference handy, as this is rather "common knowledge." Leo III allowed the filioque privately, but opposed its insertion into the Creed publicly. He did agree with it theologically, which is not surprising because the filioque is really not incorrect; it is actually incomplete.
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, no friend of St. Photius. I have re-read his famous encyclical, and it nowhere mentions azymes.
"Certain it is that in the ninth century the use of unleavened bread had become universal and obligatory in the West, while the Greeks, desirous of emphasizing the distinction between the Jewish and the Christian Pasch, offered up leavened bread. Some surprise has been expressed that Photius, so alert in picking flaws in the Latin Liturgy, made no use of a point of attack which occupies so prominent a place in the polemics of the later schismatics."
When you find a reference (preferably not from later Frankish sources) to Leo III's embracing of the filioque as being doctrinally correct, I would like to see it. Whether he allowed its private use is not quite the same thing as saying that he agreed with it theologically. He was not in a position politically to take it head-on, so the fact that he didn't actively argue against it theologically isn't compelling. It may be "common knowledge," but it is common knowledge that I haven't encountered.
You are funny! :)
Luther's followers brought it back, but the historical fact is that Luther had no respect for this Apostolic work.
No, to return to the freedom that God has given us
Wrong again! Historical fact is that Luther uttered the words pecca fortiter (sin boldly), assuring his "divines" that as long as they love God, He will forgive them all their sins, hence he said that which many wish he hadn't.
As far as I know, we still recognize the same Seven Councils and their decisions, our Christology is the same, and even our Trinitarian theology is the same albeit somewhat differently prioritized. We both venerate Theotokos as the saint among saints, etc.
Our mutual excommunications have been withdrawn, even if the papal one was invalid to begin with, and even though both were directed at specific individuals and not the entire Church of the East or the West. I submit that Latin belief in the Purgatory or Immaculate Conception does not take away from the Mystery of the Eucharist, nor does their belief in the infalibility of the Pope ex-cathedra, make the Mystery of the Eucharist "invalid." Arianism, monophysitism, Nestorianism does.
The Eucharist is not a means towards a union but an expression if it. It it the Mystical reception of the Body and Blood of Christ. If the apostolic succession guarantees priestly authority, I don't see the reason Latin Eucharist would be of lesser "value" than the Orthodox one.
No they don't. It was a local Synod. However, the very existence of these words in the 5th century indicate that the Church was a lot more hererodox than we are willing to admit.
"Leo III allowed the filioque privately, but opposed its insertion into the Creed publicly. He did agree with it theologically, which is not surprising because the filioque is really not incorrect; it is actually incomplete."
I would hasten to add that what I would be interested in would be primary source references to Leo III believing in a double eternal procession, which is what the Frankish theologians seemed to have been maintaining from a quite early point in time.
That the Church, East and West, has always believed that the Spirit "proceeds" (as Romanides points out, there are different Greek words, but one Latin word) both from the Father and the Son in the *mission* of the divine economy has never been in doubt.
Later Latin polemics insisted on a double eternal procession, with the Father and the Son being equally the source of the Spirit -- which is what is theologically heretical from the Orthodox perspective. Perhaps this is what you mean by the filioque being "incomplete."
Modern Catholic polemics seem to have shifted back to an emphasis on the "procession" of the Spirit from the Son in the mission of the divine economy -- although it is not clear that the belief in the Son as an eternal source of the Spirit has been formally abandoned.
Something niggled at me, and I found this in Fr. John Romanides. He states that Leo III did defend the filioque outside the Creed, but he places this in the context of the sense of which I speak -- a "procession" of mission in the divine economy of our salvation. But even he does not cite primary sources, which I think would be interesting to see.
The piece makes for interesting reading becaue Romanides distinguishes between three different filioques -- the orthodox West Roman filioque doctrine, the theologouemnon filioque of St. Augustine (which Romanides also regards as orthodox, given St. Augustine's meanings for his terminology), and the filioque of the Frankish theologians with a true double procession in eternity -- a making of the Son an equal source of the Spirit with the Father.
It is not surprising that this relatively dispassionate treatment of the subject happened in dialogue with Anglicans, rather than with Catholicism.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.17.en.the_filioque_in_the_dublin_agreed_statement_1984.01.htm
I was surprised to hear that, but I imagine it will continue to go on.
Perhaps this is what you mean by the filioque being "incomplete."
Yes, of course. It is summarize by St. Greogry Palamas when he says that "as regards His existence, the Spirit proceeds from the Father."
Although the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, the unbegotten Father is still the cause and source of both the Son and the Spirit, in other words of Divinity, among other things.
"It is summarized by St. Greogry Palamas when he says that "as regards His existence, the Spirit proceeds from the Father.""
Which is pretty much exactly the Orthodox understanding of what the phrase "who proceeds from the Father" means, and why we cannot add the phrase "and the Son" in that context.
As far as I can tell, the first time the Treasury of Merits appears in writing is in Clement VI's bull of 1343. I haven't read it, so I don't know what is said about it in that document other than the granting of indulgences. But it may be something similar to the line of argument that Newman takes.
I have only heard about this intercommunion here on FR, so I have no independent confirmation of this, or any idea of the extent and specific nature of this intercommunion. It is of course not going to be publicized in official news releases, so FR may be as good a source of information as any.
It should be put in the context of the fact that not all Eastern Catholics are alike. The Melkites of Lebanon are easily the Eastern Catholics who are the closest (some would say virtually identical) to their Orthodox counterparts in doctrine and praxis of any Eastern Catholic church.
Even as regards the papacy, the Melkite patriarchs have been renowned for their de facto independence from Rome, and their persistent (some might say impertinent) demands at Vatican II were largely responsible for the sea-change in how the Vatican treats Eastern Catholics, at least officially.
"I will try to find the reference to Photios's mention of unleavened bread."
Be sure to notify the folks at the Catholic Encyclopedia when you find it. I'm sure they would love to incorporate it into a subsequent revision, since they seem a bit chagrined at the fact that St. Photius specifically didn't challenge this particular Latin practice. :-)
"When we receive the elements of the Eucharist, we are receiving Jesus Christ. That is one of many concepts that we "share"."
That we share concepts is a point I would not contend. You said that we share communion, and in the way that most people would understand that statement, this is not true.
"That's the Orthodox bishops' decision, not Rome."
I never said it was Rome's decision. My point was that for communion to be shared, it actually has to be shared -- as in mutual, as in both ways.
"Brother, there is no salvation outside the Church."
So says St. Cyprian of Carthage. Few other Fathers have stated this as categorically as he did, if I'm not mistaken. We can go through twisted machinations of explaining how this and that person are "really" part of the Church even though they themselves would tell you that they are not a part of your or my church, or we can acknowledge that the ways of God in regard to salvation are a great mystery, and leave it at that.
"With your definition of Church, either EVERY Catholic or EVERY Orthodox, ALL Protestants, and ALL other non-Christians are going to hell. Are you willing to categorically state that?"
I don't recall defining the Church in any particular way, so you're putting words in my mouth. I most certainly would not be declaring on anyone's salvation in any way. For you to say that shows that you know very little about the Orthodox unwillingness to make declarations of any sort about anyone's salvation, since it puts us in the place of God, who is the only judge.
But this unwillingness to make declarations is a two-way street -- we are just as unwilling to categorically state that a given non-Orthodox person is a part of the Church as we are to say that a given non-Orthodox person is not a part of the Church. To categorically declare Catholicism and Orthodoxy to be "One Church" is to say something that most Orthodox would be unwilling to say with your level of certainty -- for from our perspective, how can we be "One Church" if we are not in communion?
And yet, look at Orthodox practice: We have never established a Patriarch of Rome, while you have established Patriarchs in any number of places where there were already Orthodox Patriarchs. That alone should point to the Orthodox Church's profound unwillingness to "write off" Rome, even in the most hostile centuries of our relationship, and it should provide clues to whether Catholicism historically really considered Orthodoxy to be part of "One Church."
And from the Catholic perspective, how can we be "One Church," if, for example, we Orthodox resolutely, consciously, and willingly reject a conciliarly declared dogma of the Catholic church? You've never answered that.
These things are better left undefined and undeclared for now. Your repeated insistence that something is true does not make it true, especially when Orthodoxy has never made any conciliar statement to that effect. You point to a theoretical (invisible, perhaps?) "One Church," while I merely point to the fact that we are not in communion on doctrinally-stated grounds. That is all I am saying.
This is a fascinating article. It will require far more time for me to go through it than I presently have. However, I have bookmarked it.
I have only read about half the article so I don't wish to sound like I'm bashing the author or trying to find fault. Calvin does go back and forth between Chysostom and Augustine in Romans-but not in Romans 7 as this author points out. Calvin mentions Chysostom in chapter 6 and 8 but never in chapter 7. I'm not sure why the author brings Chysostom into the picture for a study of Romans 7 when Calvin never mentions him.
Furthermore, in Romans 7 Calvin specifically mentions that Augustine corrected himself about the man "under the law" in his first letter to Boniface which this author did not mention. I went and looked up the letter to Boniface. In this letter Augustine is talking (among other things) about the value of baptism. To be fair, I skimmed the letter (it is 3 o'clock in the morning). If my understanding is correct, Augustine is making a case that baptism spiritually changes you (albeit doesn't guarantee anything). If I understand all of this correctly, Calvin's and Augustine's point are one in the same. That, under both systems, Romans 7 is saying that without some act of regeneration (either through God or through baptism) man remains under the law. Once regenerated either through the Spirit (Calvin) or baptism (Augustine) man is capable of living for God although his flesh remain carnal. This is precisely the same point.
Now I will confess that I did not go back and read the early writings of Augustine that this author is referring to, to see any changes in Augusstine's though. But it would seem to me this is a significant letter (Boniface) for the purpose of baptism within the Church.
I believe the Reformers probably did not become Orthodox for the same reasons I did not become Orthodox. They saw the Pelagius error in the system-that man needs to do something for God (cooperate, have faith, etc.). Man's free will was always the view of the eastern church as far as I can tell. But as I have repeatedly stated here, it was never the "true" view of the western church. The western church was heading (and is heading) towards an Orthodox view. The Reformers had no other recourse but to leave if they were to maintain the true belief of the western church.
And just how do you know that? Don't you think that if this were true then we would not need a church, we would not need preachers, we would not need thousands of "feel-good" Protestants books about the Bible and, more importantly, we would all come to the same conclusion!
I know that because that is what we see throughout Christianity. Does everyone in your church have identical knowledge and wisdom? Of course not.
We still need churches and preachers etc. because God ordained that they be there. It is His will. All Christians do not come to the same conclusions at the end because not all Christians appropriate the truth from the Spirit equally. Many Christians do not recognize the Spirit as their personal authority on teaching, and believe God chose other means of sanctifying the believer. It is doubtless then, that different conclusions will be reached.
... And so did Nestorius, and so did iconoclasts and monophysites, and Gnostics, and Pelagius, and monothelians, and so did Luther and Calvin and Zwigli, even satan himself — they are all believers.So, how is it then that they interpreted the Bible differently?
I do not believe that it is true that a person is a true believer based on only his claim to be. There are many who claim to be believers but have never been. The Bible is full of them, like Judas (by all evidence). Of course we cannot know for sure about the faith of others, we can only be certain about our own faith.
If Bible "interprets" itself why are there tens of thousands of different "churches" under the Protestant umbrella, all somewhat in agreement, and all different on some key issues which cause them to split.
Obviously, there are not tens of thousands of Protestant churches that are unlike in faith. The Spirit leads and men appropriate at varying rates.
So if your interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit and mine is, that means your understanding is as good as mine?
Oh, I never said anything like that. :) There is a great likelihood that our understandings are different, perhaps very different. The Spirit leads individually as He sees fit, and men appropriate according to their faith. There can also be outside influences that hamper the believer from learning the truth from the Spirit.
But you yourself claim that the Holy Spirit will not let you (the elect) fall away. In other words, we are corruptible, but Christ saves you. What you are really saying is that the Church was made corrupt because it is/was made of non-believers, of the non-elect.
The Spirit will not let the elect fall away permanently, beyond salvation. That leaves an open spectrum on the "saved" scale on where they end up in the process of sanctification. The elect do not all die with equal maturity. I do not make any judgment on the men of the Church as to whether they are believers or not. I assume that some are and some are not, just as with any church.
For, there is no other possible reason for you to say this other than the message that is so loud and clear: the Church is made up of fallible and corrupt men, who were not elect, who could never "hear" or "understand" the Bible correctly. The Protestant community is a group of elect men and women who read the Bible "correctly" despite the fact that they are themselves corruptible by nature, because Christ will not let them fall away.
The world is made up of fallible and corruptible men, including the Church. This is one point I disagree with the Church upon. The Church believes that en mass, it is incorruptible, and that the Pope (for Catholics) is incorruptible when he decides to be. The Protestant community contains those of the elect and those who are not of the elect, the same as in your community and the Catholic community.
The historical fact is that Luther's translation had James in it as part of the Canon (unlike the Apocrypha books which he knew were not part of the Canon)
No, to return to the freedom that God has given us Wrong again! Historical fact is that Luther uttered the words pecca fortiter (sin boldly), assuring his "divines" that as long as they love God, He will forgive them all their sins, hence he said that which many wish he hadn't.
And what does that have to do with Justification by faith?
God deals with those who abuse freedom,(Gal.6:7-8) but the freedom is, nevertheless real.
True, the only authority is the Bible which states that Justification by faith alone is true (Rom.4:5)
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.