Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Brother, I just got done reading about the Iconoclast heresy. Are you trying to tell me that the "ancient" Church always and everywhere believed in the "worship" of icons? Or that the Holy Spirit was seen as a "theological" procession from the Father alone - and an "economical" procession from the Father and the Son? :) (Starting to figure out that Filioque thing, too!)
The latin Church believes in the "deposit of Faith" treating faith as a "seed" from which new things can grow that were not there when the Apostles, or the Church Fathers walked the earth. We do not see that any aspect fo the Faith known today was hidden from the knowledge of the Fathers and the Apostles, or that they didn't know it because they weren't around when the deposit-seed poduced new "leaves."
I would dare say that the Iconoclast heresy is just one example of many where the Church of the day interpreted what came before as the "teachings of the Apostles", although one could find numerous Patristic writings to the contrary, writings that superficially could and were used to "disprove" such use of "idols".
We believe that the Church is a living interpreter of the Apostles' teachings, even when given in seed form, as you say. The theologians of the day saw the worship of icons by the faithful as an expression of this "seed" teaching, and left it to the Council to officially proclaim what was already "proclaimed" always and everywhere. The Apostles gave a core of teachings that implied other teachings that developed from them - one being the utilization of icons and statues that was NOT idolatry, and the belief that praying for the sake of the dead was efficacious.
Sure, the theological definitions of "purgatory" were not set in stone by the faithful. Nor did people understand the theological implications of icons. But in both cases, I believe, we have enough evidence to show that the faithful practiced something that was not defined by theologians. In the case of icons, the practice of the faithful of prayers asking for intercession of saints through these icons was sufficient, among other things, for the settling of the icon heresy. In the case of Purgatory, the prayers for the sake of the dead provide all the evidence we need for the existence of "Purgatory" - there would be no point in praying for the sake of a person in heaven or hell. Its existence is even implied in the Old Testament writings of Maccabees, Scriptures to both our communities, so it must be an Apostolic teacing, if it still existed as a belief in Christian communities as noted by early Christian historians...
I believe in the Orthodox Church, an accepted Ecumenical Council has not "proclaimed" or "denied" the doctrine. But if they were to study the question (as we have been forced to by the Reformation), they would come to the conclusion of its existence - though with different ideas of the specifics. As in any other doctrine, it takes heresy to define the borders of what we believe. And we always go back to that "seed" found in the Apostolic teachings.
Regards
Those who die in Christ do not go to purgatory. There is no purgatory.
That doesn't follow. First of all, we don't how exactly time works after we die. Purgatory could occur in an instant. Or it could take one day of time HERE on earth and countless ages in "afterlife" time. And secondly, which seems to go over most Protestant's heads, is that the dying crinimal was ALREADY suffering in THIS world for his sins, so it was certainly a distinct possibility that his punishment was being enacted while suffering his own crucifixion with Christ. We can pay Him now or pay Him later...
I have commented enough on the concept of Sola Fide being totally foreign to Scriptures, implied or explicit, so I won't further clutter this post.
Regards
annalex: How do you know that?
Mass is offered every day, by the way.
When I first read post 8337, I decided not to say anything about the use of the phrase "beg the question," but since it has come up again, it might be helpful to clarify the language.
I hear that phrase used frequently when people really want to say that one question leads to another question. But "beg the question" means to accept a statement as true without any proof or sufficient evidence. So what you said Harley is that you accept that following statement without any proof. But what is the proof or historical evidence that the early disciples didn't hold a Eucharist service every day?
At the same time, Catholics holding daily Mass today is not evidence that the early disciples did.
Correct, as in "лук и стрела" (bow and arrow). Thus, the lukavi (or lukavy) is the one who bends the truth and therefore deceives.
If you think about it, deception is not a lie. Deception is a distorted, or "bent" truth. Rather than tell something completely untrue, satan uses distroted truth to deceive.
So, he is not a prince of outright lies but a habitual bender of truth, or lukavi.
So our SUFFERING is what saves us?
If that were true, the glory would go to us.
But it is not true. Christ's suffering is what saves us.
All glory to God.
Blood Atonement? Holy Cow this thread is enlightening.
We didn't buy into it. Apparently the Apostolic Church, unlike the man-made "church" of John Calvin, knew better.
Paradise is not our final destination, but new earth, and for that the living and the dead will have to wait until the Second Coming.
We are judged upon our death (cf Heb 9:27) and at that point we are either destined for eternal bliss or eternal damnation. Unlike the thief, whose sins were remitted moments before his death, most of us leave this life with a baggage of unrepented sins. Only a Reformed would think that simply by mumbling "Lord, Lord" one can enter unclean into the Kingdom of God.
The Church does teach that the merits of good works continue accumulating after the saint acheived sanctification. This is what St. Thomas had to say
I answer that, Since merit is somewhat the cause of reward, rewards must needs be diversified, according as merits are diversified: for the intension or remission of a thing follows from the intension or remission of its cause. Now the merit of the aureole may be greater or lesser: wherefore the aureole may also be greater or lesser.We must observe, however, that the merit of an aureole may be intensified in two ways: first, on the part of its cause, secondly on the part of the work. For there may happen to be two persons, one of whom, out of lesser charity, suffers greater torments of martyrdom, or is more constant in preaching, or again withdraws himself more from carnal pleasures. Accordingly, intension not of the aureole but of the aurea corresponds to the intension of merit derived from its root; while intension of the aureole corresponds to intension of merit derived from the kind of act. Consequently it is possible for one who merits less in martyrdom as to his essential reward, to receive a greater aureole for his martyrdom.
Whether one person has an aureole more excellently than another person?
This must be the source of those "crowns" our protestant friends like to talk about.
Your question is a heterogenious. But the answer is: Yes. Otherwise, the Church would not have known what was heresy and what was not.
Heresies simply forced the Church to spell out what it was that the Church disagreed with and why. But the knowledge of the "why" was there all along. Thus, when Aries started to teach that Chrust was a "lesser" God than the Father, that He was a "creature," the Church knew that was wrong.
The Latins did not begin to use the filioque (and yes you are getting sclose) until the Arian heresy gave reason to compati it with filioque. Until that time the Spanish priests recited the Creed just like everyone else. The filioque was used to convince the Arians that Christ was co-substantial with the Father and not because the Creed was "incomplet" or "wrong."
As for iconoclast heresy, the early documentation shows that the Church as far back to the Apostolic times used pictures of holy people, and that none of the Cappadocian Fathers found it objectionable as neither did any of the Church Fathers before or after them.
St. John the Damascene defeated iconoclastic movement using the existing knowledge of faith and not adding to it. The Pope resisted the iconoclasts of the 8th century for the same reasons: there was no evidence in the Tradition that any of the Fathers and Patriarchs found anything wrong with the use of the icons.
Ah, OK. I should have read down before responding about the "fathers".
Those which have a true Christian faith will produce corresponding works
Some will and others won't and some will lose their faith. Since faith can be increased (Luke 17:5) it also can decrease.
21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. 24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.(Matthew 7)
And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?
(Luke 6:46)
The presumption that the redemptive work of Christ will be done to us while we sit around, declare ourselves saved, and fantacize about crowns is something Christ warned us very sternly about.
This is the thing, really; whether the "bread" was meant solely in the gastronomical sense or also in the spiritual sense, the overall meaning is eucharistic: it is a petition for gifts not earned.
I did not mean it as proof, but evidence it is, -- here is at least one apostolic Church doing it, and I am not aware of the daily Mass being any kind of Latin innovation. As Agrarian noted, the early Church had a much closer association between meal and Mass, so it would be reasonable to conjecture that it was.
Those which have a true Christian faith will produce corresponding works.
Some will and others won't and some will lose their faith.
So you don't believe the words of Christ ... that he that believeth will do ... His works ?John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.Do you find anywhere in scripture where Jesus warns that one's faith can be lost ... or that believers won't perform commensurate works ?
I just gave you Matthew 7:21-27 to that effect.
Hmmmmm.....I'd had to look into this a bit since I use this term quite frequently. You are correct in your interpretation!!!!! Here I always thought the term simply meant "that leads into another question".
Wow, no wonder I've gotten all those strange looks for all these years. And here I thought it was parsley in my front teeth. I'm glad you said something. Thanks.
See, who says a Catholic can't teach a Protestant anything. :O)
Indeed, I am no Rhodes scholar. That they would appreciate the discussion (with the possible exception of Tate who could belittle even a brilliant writer like Andrew Lytle), I most certainly concur. After all, they weren't born with PhD’s, and the best of them never bothered taking one.
When reading the backgrounds and biographies of the fugitive group, what's most striking to me is the classical education and intellectual encouragement available to bright young minds in even the most rural parts of the South, before state schools triumphed over such frivolous pursuits. Before they were known or published, they were gathered in living rooms and arbors listening to their elders recite stories and poetry, and learning Greek and Latin from the widow.
Though these kinds of discussions are perhaps less frequent on FR than they used to be, the best argument for an open forum like this is that it allows worthwhile intellectual pursuit free of professional sanction. Save for a few discrete freepers, we're not trained academics; but I think some smart German said that leisure is the basis of culture.
I have attempted in vain for several years to find a copy of God without Thunder I can afford, and so must subsist on what I can glean from Ransom's essays in I'll Take my Stand, Who Owns America, and those portions of The World's Body I find at my level.
I know more about the agrarians' flirtations with Roman Catholicism than Eastern Orthodoxy, but a story has been passed to me about the very question, in which another somewhat-known southern lit. critic delivered his answer to a drawn-out discussion with an air of finality: "We're not from over there." (my html is off, so imagine italics in the appropriate places). A cruder version than your explanation, but both demonstrate on some level the intractability of culture and community in the practice of faith.
I believe "Remarks on the Southern Religion" was the essay in I'll Take My Stand that I found least satisfying (of those I read eagerly). Admittedly, my greatest difficulty was that I'm not sure I like where he's coming from at that particular moment. But I can't argue that in his South there was an intellectual contentment derived from certainty, which can be dramatically contrasted to the hyperactive experimentation of New England. There is strength and weakness in this. Strength of faith is a virtue, yet the South never could have born an Orestes Brownson or a G.K. Chesterton. The indispensable polemic is the special craft of the convert.
As a would-be agrarian, I can’t ignore that so many of my icons were adult converts and geographic wanderers. As a cradle Catholic, I tend to avoid deep theological debates knowing my rhetoric will be found lacking. This renders me an odd parasite, feeding on late arrivals (a true American capitalist?).
I am moved by one last point you quote from Davidson: "The Southerner is faced with this paradox: He must use an instrument, which is political, and so unrealistic and pretentious that he cannot believe in it, to re-establish a private, self-contained, and essentially spiritual life."
I have spent far more of my life working in politics than any healthy, rational American should even consider. Without getting myself banned, I can’t begin to elaborate the complexities and contradictions I find inherent to my “vocation.” At its best and most noble, it is an attempt to carve out a space for “people like us” to live as we would, through means we find absurd. The greatest impediment is a growing conviction to live in accordance with belief. Increasingly, it occurs to me that the best we can do is to pull back, and faithfully tend to our own little corner(s) of the world. Struggling to decide if this is realistic, defeatist or perhaps both? Is that good?
One contemporary writer I’m going to give more time to is Rod Dreher. He’s no intellectual on the level of those you’ve mentioned, but he is trying to find practical ways for “people like us” to live in the world we find, consistent with our loftier notions.
You’ve given me much to think about, and little to disagree with, so rather than restate in my own words, I’ll draw mine to an over-due close with gratitude.
As you say, that is a reasonable conjecture, not proof. Whatever form the early Christian worship service took, we simply don't know all the details. I think it reasonable that there was some variety of practice from one local church to another.
A person who has been sent to Purgatory is already saved on account of the mercy of God and the Works of Jesus Christ the Redeemer. You should know better that we don't believe that anything we do earn salvation.
Regards
You weren't aware that Jesus' Blood atoned for our sins??
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.