Eastern Orthodoxy Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter patricius79
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rohzek said:
Chapter 2 doesn’t back up your case at any point. He is only talking about prominent bishops of Rome who righteously held to the true faith. He also references more than them though. He is essentially talking about correct faith. He wasn’t speaking of any sort of Church that used a proper adjective.

Furthermore, you misunderstand me. I did not claim that capitals were invented. I was only saying the terms “Orthodox” and “Catholic” only became proper adjectives after the Protestant Reformation. Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...
I made a mistake. I gave you the wrong link. No wonder you were having trouble. What I was saying didn’t match the link I gave. Mea culpa :o

It’s NOT ch 2 but ch 3

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 2-3
 
Tomdstone said:
The article says that limbo is " the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal guilt, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone."
But is that the only belief? Is there another belief which says that we can hope that unbaptized children are not excluded from the beatific vision?
Click to expand...
"It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
 
Tomdstone said:
The article says that limbo is " the permanent place or state of those unbaptized children and others who, dying without grievous personal guilt, are excluded from the beatific vision on account of original sin alone."
Click to expand...
Don’t stop reading there.

Limbo was a way of discussing what happens to a soul who is not born again of water and spirit (baptized). Scripture is quite negative on one who is not baptized (born again of water and spirit).

From that same article.

“II. LIMBUS INFANTIUM.—The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the eternal lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” (John, hi, 5) for entry into the kingdom of heaven (see Baptism. subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul’s teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Rom., v, 12 sqq.). On the other hand, it is clear from Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John, ix, 4; Luke, xii, 40; xvi, 19 sqq.; II Cor., v, 10; see also Apocatastasis). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus inlfantium, the “children’s limbo”
The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.”… [snip]

What follows “[snip]” explains the above view with a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. Limbo is not in the Catechism. It is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Limbo

*Limbo is not a doctrine. The Church holds out hope for the unbaptized children. One still has to look at the reason for why there IS discussion of limbo. *
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
 
At the risk of hijacking this thread, I might start a thread on Limbo so we can keep this topic on what OP originally wanted.

My bad, I know I “fulled the fire” by going off topic myself.
 
Rohzek said:
As for when Paul was gradually forgotten, it seems pretty clear to me that Paul did sorta fade into the background as unimportant to the prestige of Rome. For a brief mention of this see: Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York: Fordham University Press, 1966. Corrected edition 1979.
Click to expand...
Does Dvornik in his book mention this cathedral to the honor of St Paul?

here’s a short history to that cathedral to St Paul in Rome. vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/en/basilica/storia.htm

That basilica was there and functional in Rome for 1700 years. iow it’s a working cathedral. Imagine how many masses have been said there. How many pilgrims to Rome visited his tomb? I was one of them. 😉

add to that the virtual tour of the Cathedral I gave previously, to show how magnificent the cathedral is.

Having not read his book, I guess I’m having a hard time seeing Dvornik’s point.
 
steve_b said:
Does Dvornik in his book mention this cathedral to the honor of St Paul?

here’s a short history to that cathedral to St Paul in Rome. vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/en/basilica/storia.htm

That basilica was there and functional in Rome for 1700 years. iow it’s a working cathedral. Imagine how many masses have been said there. How many pilgrims to Rome visited his tomb? I was one of them. 😉

add to that the virtual tour of the Cathedral I gave previously, to show how magnificent the cathedral is.

Having not read his book, I guess I’m having a hard time seeing Dvornik’s point.
Click to expand...
Dvornik doesn’t make my point about the cathedral. I only know of its restoration and whatnot from an art historian whom I had asked about it. Granted, she has high standards considering that early medieval Rome is her area of expertise, and much of what was “restored” really upset her.

My point about Dvornik is that he lists all of the canons and whatnot of the early councils. As time goes by, Rome’s prestige and its linkage to Paul just gradually falls out of use. It’s not his central thesis, but just one of the things mentioned.
 
Rohzek said:
I only know of its restoration and whatnot from an art historian whom I had asked about it. Granted, she has high standards considering that early medieval Rome is her area of expertise, and much of what was “restored” really upset her.
Click to expand...
did you take the tour of that cathedral that I posted?

a virtual tour Of the papal basilica of St Pauls Outside the Walls vatican.va/various/basiliche/san_paolo/vr_tour/index-en.html

I’ve been there. Personally, I can’t imagine what she was so upset over. Did she give specifics?
R:
My point about Dvornik is that he lists all of the canons and whatnot of the early councils. As time goes by, Rome’s prestige and its linkage to Paul just gradually falls out of use. It’s not his central thesis, but just one of the things mentioned.
Click to expand...
Can you give examples that he used?
 
I’m pretty sure that the cathedral proper of the bishop of Rome is St. John in the Lateran, not St. Peter’s or St. Paul’s
 
Cavaradossi said:
Haven’t they only been papal basilicas since the time of Pope Benedict XVI? Before then I thought they were properly called patriarchal basilicas.
Click to expand...
Benedict XVI dropped one of the titles (partiarch) . catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42711

That fits with what he wrote (when as Card Ratzinger)
  • "3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
  1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html
  • Therefore, the reality of those basilicas being papal basilicas, didn’t change because the pope dropped one of his titles, (patriarch ).
 
But those basilicas were called patriarchal basilicas not because they were just “papal basilicas” under a different name, but because historically each one was assigned to a patriarch. St. Paul’s was assigned to the Patriarch of Alexandria, for example.
 
Cavaradossi said:
But those basilicas were called patriarchal basilicas not because they were just “papal basilicas” under a different name, but because historically each one was assigned to a patriarch. St. Paul’s was assigned to the Patriarch of Alexandria, for example.
Click to expand...
Since we’re talking about Rome, the “patriarch” under the “patriarchal system” is the pope. Therefore in the language of that system, “the patriarchal basilicas in Rome = papal basilicas in Rome” it’s a distinction without a difference.

Re: the “patriarchal system”

as then Ratzinger said, that was a system (pentarchy) development in the East as a way to equalize the Church into 5 heads (a pentarchy). While the title of patriarch was given to the pope as one of the 5 patriarchal heads, then Ratzinger as head of the doctrine of faith for the Catholic Church, said, no pope ever accepted such a notion of equalization of sees. And so when Ratzinger became pope, he chose to just drop that title. It only confuses matters in the broader view

Dropping that title patriarch, doesn’t then mean “patriarchal basilicas aren’t the same thing as papal basilicas” . They are the same
 
Cavaradossi said:
But those basilicas were called patriarchal basilicas not because they were just “papal basilicas” under a different name, but because historically each one was assigned to a patriarch. St. Paul’s was assigned to the Patriarch of Alexandria, for example.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me what “assigned” to means in these circumstances?
 
steve_b said:
Since we’re talking about Rome, the “patriarch” under the “patriarchal system” is the pope. Therefore in the language of that system, “the patriarchal basilicas in Rome = papal basilicas in Rome” it’s a distinction without a difference.

Re: the “patriarchal system”

as then Ratzinger said, that was a system development in the East as a way to equalize the Church into 5 heads (a pentarchy). While the title of patriarch was given to the pope as one of the 5 patriarchal heads, then Ratzinger as head of the doctrine of faith for the Catholic Church, said, no pope ever accepted such a notion of equalization of sees. And so when Ratzinger became pope, he chose to just drop that title. It only confuses matters in the broader view

Dropping that title patriarch, doesn’t then mean “patriarchal basilicas aren’t the same thing as papal basilicas” . They are the same
Click to expand...
Right. So each one wasn’t assigned to a different patriarch?
 
Cavaradossi said:
But those basilicas were called patriarchal basilicas not because they were just “papal basilicas” under a different name, but because historically each one was assigned to a patriarch. St. Paul’s was assigned to the Patriarch of Alexandria, for example.
Click to expand...
Since we’re talking about Rome, the “patriarch” under the “patriarchal system” is the pope. Therefore in the language of that system, “the patriarchal basilicas in Rome = papal basilicas in Rome” it’s a distinction without a difference.

Re: the “patriarchal system”

as then Ratzinger said, that was a system development of the East as a way to equalize the Church into 5 heads (a pentarchy) with the pope only being 1st among equals… While the title of patriarch was given to the pope as one of the 5 patriarchal heads, then Ratzinger as head of the doctrine of faith for the Catholic Church, said, no pope ever accepted such a notion of equalization of sees. And so when Ratzinger became pope, he chose to just drop that title. It only confuses matters in the broader view

Dropping that title patriarch, doesn’t then mean “patriarchal basilicas aren’t the same thing as papal basilicas” .
 
Picky_Picky said:
But in some other way?
Click to expand...
When it was said

“But those basilicas were called patriarchal basilicas not because they were just “papal basilicas” under a different name, but because historically each one was assigned to a patriarch. St. Paul’s was assigned to the Patriarch of Alexandria, for example.”

my point is, while a basilica in Rome can be built in honor of, or even over the bones of a saint, and can also have other symbolisms of association as well, that doesn’t mean at the same time it can’t be a papal basilica. Those basilicas in Rome we’re talking about, were built by the Catholic Church.
 
steve_b said:
did you take the tour of that cathedral that I posted?

Can you give examples that he used?
Click to expand...
It is just something that he comments on as he goes on and on throughout the book as he lists the canons of each and every council, etc. It’s been about 4 years since I’ve last read the book, and I don’t own it myself. Usually I’d be more than happy to check it out next time I go to the library so I could find the exact page numbers of interest, but currently I’m just trying to finish up on my MA thesis by the end of this month, so I got enough books on my plate as is. My apologies for not being more specific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top