Catholic and Orthodox: Best of both worlds

[JMJ_coder]

No, it isn’t.

Then how can you possibly anathematize someone or something? If you don’t believe X then you are anathema and will be cast out into the darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth - but, oh, I can’t actually give a guarantee that X is the truth - that just doesn’t compute.

Because of truth. If truth is the same past, present, and future, why do we need infallibility to know what the truth is?

Because there are competing versions of the ‘truth’.

• A - I’m a bishop and I say Jesus is of the same substance of God.
• B - I’m a bishop and I say that Jesus is of like substance of God.

Obviously, given the mutually exclusive nature of this, at most only one of the two bishops can be correct. And since, as you rightly observed, the truth is the same yesterday, today, and forever, whichever of the two is correct that truth was always the truth and will always be the truth. But, which one is correct?

Also, just because the truth is there doesn’t mean we recognize it immediately. If we did there would have never been any need for ecumenical councils. For example. obviously that Christ has two wills in the Incarnation is the truth, has been the truth, and forever will be the truth. But it took several centuries for the Church to fully recognize, understand and formulate that truth.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yes, our respective faiths. Read up on it. There’s no one book or quick read on it. But look at our current day Liturgies and Traditions, they are so close to one another you wouldn’t think we were separated for 1500 years. Yet the RC is completely different.

You’re the one making the claim here, thus it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof. I won’t do your work for you.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Yes, our respective faiths. Read up on it. There’s no one book or quick read on it. But look at our current day Liturgies and Traditions, they are so close to one another you wouldn’t think we were separated for 1500 years. Yet the RC is completely different.

True

 

[irenaeuslyons]

But that is the thing, our nature is diseased. If what makes our nature diseased is original sin, and Mary was exempted from Original Sin, then Mary is like the pre-fall Adam and Eve, not the post fall man. And that is unacceptable for many reasons. For one thing, if God can will someone back into the pre-fall state, why didn’t he do it for everyone else? Why make humanity suffer through centuries of the fallen state? And why make His own Son suffer something that is not needed at all? To satisfy his own divine justice? That makes God nothing but a sadistic masochistic God. But that is not who God is. And again going back to “On the incarnation,” St. Athanasius writes that becoming man was the only way for God to save us. Which means the IC was out of the question and that Original Sin is not how it is understood in the West (as something that God can remove by sheer will).

And yet Patriarch of Constantinople Photius says that Mary was sanctified “ek Brephous” (Homily on the Annunciation). And Jeremiah was sanctified before he was even born, free from any stain. To ask why God did it this way for them and another for the rest is like asking in the words of Paul “Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”

 

[irenaeuslyons]

St. Athanasius writes that becoming man was the only way for God to save us. Which means the IC was out of the question and that Original Sin is not how it is understood in the West (as something that God can remove by sheer will).

So your argument is that God could not forgive sin before the Crucifixion? And that is why the IC must be false?

 

[steve_b]

@steveb - Both the Nova Vulgata (the current official Latin translation) and the Clementine Vulgate both use the same phrase for both of those verses, ‘ad oboeditionem fidei’. Both the NAB (the official American English translation) and the RSV translate them both to ‘the obedience of faith’. I’m not sure about the RSV, but the NAB was translated directly from the source languages, in this case Greek (sorry, my Greek isn’t good enough to reference a Greek New Testament in this case). The DR translation does have the disparate translations, but it was translated more-or-less directly from the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate and using English from a different time that had different (sometimes subtly) forms so a comparison really isn’t fair.

@ComeHome2Rome - Is this really that big of a deal. It seems more a case of arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else.

JMJ,

back in post 326, I said it is no big deal. CH2R, does appear to argue for the sake of arguing.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10880534&postcount=326

The Douay as you know is the English translation from the Vulgate. That’s the translation I used in the example.

 

[steve_b]

I own Bible. I know how to open the Bible. I know how to look up a Bible passage. I know how to read. I read each of the passages you cite.

And there have been a repeated misquotation of Romans 1:5. Shame, shame, shame on anyone who twists the Holy and Sacred Scriptures.

WHY this is being done is beyond my understanding. WHY in the world do people want us to think that the Bible wants us to be Obedient TO Faith rather than what the Bible Actually says? WHAT is the purpose behind this misrepresention of Sacred Scripture?

I took only the 1st 2 definitions from the dictionary, on the 2 words in question. I will highlight the reason why I think there is no need for such concern on your part.

Definition of OF ]
1 —used as a function word to indicate a point of reckoning <north of the lake>
2 a—used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation <a man of noble birth>
b—used as a function word to indicate the cause, motive, or reason <died of flu>

Definition of TO ]
1 a—used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition suggestive of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached <drove to the city> <went back to the original idea> <went to lunch>
b—used as a function word to indicate direction <a mile to the south> <turned his back to the door> <a tendency to silliness>

2 a—used as a function word to indicate purpose, intention, tendency, result, or end <came to our aid> <drink to his health>
b—used as a function word to indicate the result of an action or a process <broken all to pieces> <go to seed> <to their surprise, the train left on time>

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then how can you possibly anathematize someone or something? If you don’t believe X then you are anathema and will be cast out into the darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth - but, oh, I can’t actually give a guarantee that X is the truth - that just doesn’t compute.

Because there are competing versions of the ‘truth’.

• A - I’m a bishop and I say Jesus is of the same substance of God.
• B - I’m a bishop and I say that Jesus is of like substance of God.

Obviously, given the mutually exclusive nature of this, at most only one of the two bishops can be correct. And since, as you rightly observed, the truth is the same yesterday, today, and forever, whichever of the two is correct that truth was always the truth and will always be the truth. But, which one is correct?

Also, just because the truth is there doesn’t mean we recognize it immediately. If we did there would have never been any need for ecumenical councils. For example. obviously that Christ has two wills in the Incarnation is the truth, has been the truth, and forever will be the truth. But it took several centuries for the Church to fully recognize, understand and formulate that truth.

The problem here is you are equating the truth with the bishop. The truth is the truth. If a person with a doctorate in mathematics says that 1+1=5, do we believe him? Just because of who he is? How about this real life example:

4 Patriarchs of the Church = Christ has one will
1 lay monk = Christ has two wills

Guess who won that debate?

The problem with infallibility is the truth is dependent on the person, not on the truth itself. Just because one is infallible, how sure are we that they know what the truth is? We make our religion as some sort of magic where one is imbued with fantastical powers to determine truth from untruth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So your argument is that God could not forgive sin before the Crucifixion? And that is why the IC must be false?

Again, please, please, please, please, please read “On the Incarnation”. Because St. Athanasius clearly states there that:

But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God.

The problem isn’t merely forgiveness of sins, the problem is with our very nature being corrupted. That is why God cannot just from afar forgive our trespasses and save us. It is not enough.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You’re the one making the claim here, thus it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof. I won’t do your work for you.

What my work? I’ve done my work that is why I know. If you want to know, then you do your works. I’m not going to do your work for you. If you don’t want to believe, that is fine. If you do not want to do your research, that is fine. I’m giving you the entry point to look into this. But if I were to do all your work for you and post even a small portion of the material I have gone through, I would be flooding this thread with lengthy posts that I doubt people will read anyway. You are free to believe what you want to believe, I’m just stating the obvious fact here. If you don’t want to read up on your own and just follow your misguided preconception, that is up to you. I’m not here to tell you what to think.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Again, please, please, please, please, please read “On the Incarnation”. Because St. Athanasius clearly states there that:.

You have taken Athanasius out of context.

Lk 5:20 Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

 

[Peter_J]

@steveb - Both the Nova Vulgata (the current official Latin translation) and the Clementine Vulgate both use the same phrase for both of those verses, ‘ad oboeditionem fidei’. Both the NAB (the official American English translation) and the RSV translate them both to ‘the obedience of faith’. I’m not sure about the RSV, but the NAB was translated directly from the source languages, in this case Greek (sorry, my Greek isn’t good enough to reference a Greek New Testament in this case). The DR translation does have the disparate translations, but it was translated more-or-less directly from the Latin of the Clementine Vulgate and using English from a different time that had different (sometimes subtly) forms so a comparison really isn’t fair.

@ComeHome2Rome - Is this really that big of a deal. It seems more a case of arguing for the sake of arguing than anything else.

Well said. Some translations, such as the King James, have “obedience to faith” in Romans 1:5. Others have “obedience of faith”.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t buy it, and (no offense) I’m sure not going to take your word that ‘we are the same in practically everything’ in your implication that the relationships look something like this:

OO <-> EO <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>CC

I think our Orthodox friend exaggerates a wee bit. I would draw it more like this:

OO <----> EO
EO <------------------------------------------------->CC
CC <--------------------------------------------------->OO
and, if you like
CC <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Lutherans

(I could go on and on, but won’t.)

Anyhow, the question is somewhat academic for me, since I’ve never been interested in becoming OO.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You have taken Athanasius out of context.

Lk 5:20 Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

No I did not. Did you even read this book? The whole purpose of that book is to explain why God had to become man. It wasn’t for the forgiveness of sins, God freely offers that and can do that without being incarnate. Read John 1, “for God so loved the world that He gave it His only Son that whomsoever shall believe in Him shall not perish (shall not be corrupted)…”

 

[irenaeuslyons]

No I did not. Did you even read this book? The whole purpose of that book is to explain why God had to become man. It wasn’t for the forgiveness of sins, God freely offers that and can do that without being incarnate. Read John 1, “for God so loved the world that He gave it His only Son that whomsoever shall believe in Him shall not perish (shall not be corrupted)…”

I guess he was more orthodox than Photius and Palamas. Photius and Palamas say that Mary was free from any sin… from conception. Palamas says it was in stages starting with her ancestors until the perfection of her birth. Photius says from her starting point in the embryonic state.

But then again Athanasius did not agree with Photius on the filioque either.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The problem here is you are equating the truth with the bishop. The truth is the truth. If a person with a doctorate in mathematics says that 1+1=5, do we believe him? Just because of who he is? How about this real life example:

4 Patriarchs of the Church = Christ has one will
1 lay monk = Christ has two wills

Guess who won that debate?

The problem with infallibility is the truth is dependent on the person, not on the truth itself. Just because one is infallible, how sure are we that they know what the truth is? We make our religion as some sort of magic where one is imbued with fantastical powers to determine truth from untruth.

4 Monothelites of the Church = Christ has one will

1 God = Christ has two wills

Lk 22:42 “Saying: Father, if thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done.”

From our Blessed Lords own mouth, it is indisputable that there are two wills that act in perfect harmony, just as there are Three Persons acting in perfect harmony as One God.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

No I did not. Did you even read this book? The whole purpose of that book is to explain why God had to become man. It wasn’t for the forgiveness of sins, God freely offers that and can do that without being incarnate. Read John 1, “for God so loved the world that He gave it His only Son that whomsoever shall believe in Him shall not perish (shall not be corrupted)…”

The difference between Mary being formed with and without an IC is sin, not salvation.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[JMJ_coder]

What my work? I’ve done my work that is why I know. If you want to know, then you do your works. I’m not going to do your work for you. If you don’t want to believe, that is fine. If you do not want to do your research, that is fine. I’m giving you the entry point to look into this. But if I were to do all your work for you and post even a small portion of the material I have gone through, I would be flooding this thread with lengthy posts that I doubt people will read anyway. You are free to believe what you want to believe, I’m just stating the obvious fact here. If you don’t want to read up on your own and just follow your misguided preconception, that is up to you. I’m not here to tell you what to think.

Sorry, that’s not the way it works. You have made a claim. I have challenged that claim. It is now your duty to either present the evidence supporting your claim or withdraw your claim. It is not my job to make your argument for you.

 

[JMJ_coder]

The problem here is you are equating the truth with the bishop. The truth is the truth. If a person with a doctorate in mathematics says that 1+1=5, do we believe him? Just because of who he is? How about this real life example:

4 Patriarchs of the Church = Christ has one will
1 lay monk = Christ has two wills

Guess who won that debate?

The problem with infallibility is the truth is dependent on the person, not on the truth itself. Just because one is infallible, how sure are we that they know what the truth is? We make our religion as some sort of magic where one is imbued with fantastical powers to determine truth from untruth.

I am not equating the truth with the bishop. But, I am asserting that a bishop is expected to proclaim the truth of the Gospel, even though many have failed in this respect.

The basic problem remains…how do you know what the truth is. By what criteria do you judge that the Arians were wrong and the Fathers of Nicea were right? Or that Christ has two wills and not one (or three or none…). How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God? How do you know what is the truth?

 

[JMJ_coder]

I think our Orthodox friend exaggerates a wee bit. I would draw it more like this:

OO <----> EO
EO <------------------------------------------------->CC
CC <--------------------------------------------------->OO
and, if you like
CC <------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>Lutherans

(I could go on and on, but won’t.)

Anyhow, the question is somewhat academic for me, since I’ve never been interested in becoming OO.

I think it is important to not generalize and figure out first, what aspect(s) are we comparing. What are we viewing as to similarity? Language? Cultural outlook? Theology? Liturgy? Musical styles? Modes of expression? etc. Some of these things matter and some are irrelevant. Also, are we just comparing just the superficial or are we going deeper?