Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

  • Thread starter Thread starter manualman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joab_Anias said:
Did Jesus break the same rule when He remarked about the same pride?
Click to expand...
You are not Jesus and you don’t know the thoughts that run through my mind. Unless I am mistaken, you can not read peoples thoughts like Jesus could. I could easily call you self righteous but I don’t know your thoughts so I would not be justified in doing it.
 
jimmy said:
This is an emphasis of how we disagree. I tend to see that the Holy Spirit was guiding each of the saints in the truth. Whereas you seem to see that the views of the fathers were simply opinion(that might not be an accurate statement of what you believe). I tend to see the guidance of the Holy Spirit more in each saint whereas you see it in the Church as a legislating body. I see it phenomenologically, you see it more along the lines of scholasticism.
Click to expand...
Not to put words in the mouth, but it may very well be more accurate to say that no one is seeing the views of the fathrs as a mere opinion… We are simply not sharing in your assertive opinions about those views.

I have only dipped my pinky into an actually study of the Summa… but your continued reference to Thomis and Scholasticism rings of a certain polemic or critique of one who has read much crticism of Thomas, but not Tomas. I also feel it important to note again “The west is not all STA.”
 
jimmy said:
A dogma that does not have the support of the fathers is meaningless because it wasn’t given by God. This is the view in the west as well.
Click to expand...
All the Dogmas you fail to assend to have the support of the EC Fathers or they wouldn’t be Dogma.

This includes Mortal Sin as I have shown you in post # 220.

Yet you simply refuse to discuss what you deny.
 
ASimpleSinner said:
Not to put words in the mouth, but it may very well be more accurate to say that no one is seeing the views of the fathrs as a mere opinion… We are simply not sharing in your assertive opinions about those views.

I have only dipped my pinky into an actually study of the Summa… but your continued reference to Thomis and Scholasticism rings of a certain polemic or critique of one who has read much crticism of Thomas, but not Tomas. I also feel it important to note again “The west is not all STA.”
Click to expand...
I have never read any criticism of Thomas. I have read more Thomas than criticism of him. I have just come to a different view of things than Thomas has.
 
Joab_Anias said:
All the Dogmas you fail to assend to have the support of the EC Fathers or they wouldn’t be Dogma.

This includes Mortal Sin as I have shown you in post # 220.

Yet you simply refuse to discuss what you deny.
Click to expand...
Augustine is the originator of the distinction. That is hardly consent of the fathers.
 
jimmy said:
You are not Jesus and you don’t know the thoughts that run through my mind. Unless I am mistaken, you can not read peoples thoughts like Jesus could. I could easily call you self righteous but I don’t know your thoughts so I would not be justified in doing it.
Click to expand...
Thats right I am not Jesus but I have my Gifts from the Holy Spirit and my faults as well which the Lord has used to lead me toward Him. The Gifts are not magic and not of the occult but of the Holy Spirit. They give us the mind of Christ and through the Holy Spirit He permits us to share in some of the same gifts Jesus had. Jesus didn’t read minds either. He discerned spirits and had wisdom. These things (aside from His divinity) made Him righteous. He told the Jews they were a stiff necked people because they wouldn’t listen to truth. Do you think this made Him arrogant or self righteous?
 
jimmy said:
Augustine is the originator of the distinction. That is hardly consent of the fathers.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain this “Augustinian” difference for all the people here since you keep referring to it?
 
jimmy said:
Augustine is the originator of the distinction. That is hardly consent of the fathers.
Click to expand...
Those were only two quotes and the first one predated Augustine so how can you say Augustine originated it. Saint Paul originated it. Was not Augustine a Church Father as are all those who have promulgated the distinction ever since. I am sure I could find more. What is your critetria for someone being a Father. Must they agree with you?
 
jimmy said:
If the Latin church thinks they are superior to both the Greek and Syriac fathers that they can contradict their theologies and tradition then the Latins are the ones who need to fix themselves because they need to realize that Latin theology is not superior to that of the Syriacs and Greeks. Neither of these two traditions professes the Augustinian view of OS. If Rome is going to take Augustines theology and develop and define it so that it contradicts Greek and Syriac patristics then Rome is wrong because they have rejected the tradition of the Church which is much bigger than St. Augustine. Patristics is not up for reinterpretation, it is what it is. Since we, Syrians and Greeks, have an apophatic theology that does not approach God with a speculative theology, it is consequently Romes job to make sure their theology does not develop in a way that we can not accomodate.

I just risked getting pounced by all the Latins on this forum.
Click to expand...
This statement is as anti-Maronite as it is anti-Roman. The Maronite Church has professed its fidelity to Rome since the fifth and early sixth century, when Maronite monks wrote to Pope Hormisdas.

Maronites went out of their way to proclaim their union with Rome, not only during the Crusades, but during the period of the Council of Trent. It used to the case that Maronite writers claimed that their church was in perpetual union with Rome.

If, on the other hand, there is some sort of Maronite tradition of bashing Rome’s theology, I have certainly missed it. (That’s because there isn’t one).
 
In response to the decreasing charity level, I want to remind the participants of the guidelines for posting on religious discussions.

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline, culture, and history of Eastern, Oriental, and Western Catholicism. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
  • It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
  • Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular Church should be done cautiously*
  • It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
  • It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
  • It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular Church is or was in error.
  • Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.
 
jimmy said:
It has anathematized the fathers then as I already said.

This is an emphasis of how we disagree. I tend to see that the Holy Spirit was guiding each of the saints in the truth. Whereas you seem to see that the views of the fathers were simply opinion(that might not be an accurate statement of what you believe). I tend to see the guidance of the Holy Spirit more in each saint whereas you see it in the Church as a legislating body. I see it phenomenologically, you see it more along the lines of scholasticism.

Yes, certain saints made errors from time to time but you can’t say that almost all of them erred on a matter. it is their beliefs which we are to follow. A dogma that does not have the support of the fathers is meaningless because it wasn’t given by God. This is the view in the west as well.
Click to expand...
no one ever said that. This member simply means that no individual Father is to be looked to as the final authority on faith/morals, the Church is.
 
Catherine_Grant said:
In response to the decreasing charity level, I want to remind the participants of the guidelines for posting on religious discussions.

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the liturgy, theology, spirituality, discipline, culture, and history of Eastern, Oriental, and Western Catholicism. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
  • It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
  • Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular Church should be done cautiously*
  • It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
  • It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
  • It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular Church is or was in error.
  • Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.
Click to expand...
A hearty welcome to the forum Catherine, I see it hasn’t taken long for you to be dragged in to the scuffle 😃
 
"fulloffaith:
What about the councils? Do ECs accept all 21 of them, or just the first seven, as do the Orthodox?
Click to expand...
ASimpleSinner said:
HailMary said:
All Catholics Churches accept them.
Click to expand...
This may not answer the question of whether ECs accept all 21 councils of the RCC, but check out the link below to discover that some Melkites at least teach their high school age children (beardless or otherwise) in the US that only the first seven councils are “ecumenical” and that no others are “ecumenical” because the Orthodox were absent from participation in them. Now THAT’s curious!:confused:

melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm#GRADES%207-12
Click to expand...
 
thedejongs said:
This may not answer the question of whether ECs accept all 21 councils of the RCC, but check out the link below to discover that some Melkites at least teach their high school age children (beardless or otherwise) in the US that only the first seven councils are “ecumenical” and that no others are “ecumenical” because the Orthodox were absent from participation in them. Now THAT’s curious!:confused:

melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm#GRADES%207-12
Click to expand...
Indeed it is curious. But counting Councils is a problem for many it seems- EC, RC and EO, even. For example see:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848)
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, to the Easterns
Refers in several places to 8 Ecumenical Councils. This letter was subscribe to by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria as well as the Synods of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. Curious, indeed.

That a non-magisterial site or posting is wrong is not surprising. Plus, many folks even on this Board have misinterpreted the comments by Cardinal Kaspar and others that the first 7 councils were special. So, if patriarchs, synods and the participants on this Board have trouble, why should we be surprised that a Sunday School site - or even a bishop or two - is off?

As to the question in general, Bishop John Elya’s answers found on the Eparchy website are considered, helpful and sensitive - and right.
 
johnnykins said:
Indeed it is curious. But counting Councils is a problem for many it seems- EC, RC and EO, even. For example see:
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848)
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, to the Easterns
Refers in several places to 8 Ecumenical Councils. This letter was subscribe to by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria as well as the Synods of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem. Curious, indeed.

That a non-magisterial site or posting is wrong is not surprising. Plus, many folks even on this Board have misinterpreted the comments by Cardinal Kaspar and others that the first 7 councils were special. So, if patriarchs, synods and the participants on this Board have trouble, why should we be surprised that a Sunday School site - or even a bishop or two - is off?

As to the question in general, Bishop John Elya’s answers found on the Eparchy website are considered, helpful and sensitive - and right.
Click to expand...
Well, what i meant to ask was, are absolutely ALL ECs officially required to accept all 21 ecumenical councils as authoritative, along with all of their dogmatic pronouncements?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top