Errors that need correcting!

[itsjustdave1988]

Where was I nasty? Geeeeezzzzzz … it seems disagreement with you is always taken as a lack of charity. I charitably think that you are incorrect, and I charitably submit that you lack Catholic doctrinal support for your position.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

that doesn’t change the fact that he was off on the Immaculate Conception

Depends upon which works you are reading. Aquinas asserted in his Commentary on the Book of Sentences:

“Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.”

I think he got it right here. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[itsjustdave1988]

that doesn’t change the fact that he was off on the Immaculate Conception

Depends upon which works you are reading. Aquinas asserted in his Commentary on the Book of Sentences:

“Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.” (I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3)

I think his got it right here. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Where was I nasty? Geeeeezzzzzz … it seems disagreement with you is always taken as a lack of charity. I charitably think that you are incorrect, and I charitably submit that you lack Catholic doctrinal support for you position.

Did you say…

itsjustdave1988:

If so, by what authority are you proposing that Jesus did have faith? By your own private lights? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif What confidence can you draw from that?

I am sorry if I take that as nastiness but I do. There was no need for this comment, especially when there is no defined dogma on the issue at hand.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In the absence of a defined dogma we are free to believe as we wish.

Hmmmm… in this specific matter of doctrine, you are. But not in all matters that are not defined dogma. CCC 892 says otherwise.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sorry that you took that as nasty. Perhaps I should have simply quoted from Innocent VI “those who hold to [the teaching of the Angelic Doctor] are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” Perhaps that would have sounded less nasty.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Hmmmm… in this specific matter of doctrine, you are. But not in all matters that are not defined dogma. CCC 892 says otherwise.

Yes that is true. I find it good when I reference a paragraph of the CCC to post it, so here it is, along with those from the section it is in.

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command. They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith “endowed with the authority of Christ.”

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

And as you can see this section is speaking of the Teaching office of the Church which is exercised though the successors of the apostles (the bishops) and though the Magisterium.

From a quick look, Aquinas was not a bishop and even if he was one bishop does not make the Magistirum.

As CCC 892 starts our, “Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way”.

This paragraph does not say that saints writing are the same.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Leo XIII encyclicals are magisterial. Divine assistance was given to them in a particular way when he wrote Aeterni Patris. I give my religious submission to this magisterial texts, since it was addressed to the whole Church from the Roman Pontiff, an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium to the universal Church.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Jesus refuses to verbally make a “noble profession” to Pilate that JESUS IS LORD, Jesus is King or Jesus is Salvation (MAT 27:11) (MAR 15:2)(LUK 23:3) (JOH 18:33). Through His integrity, piety, love of obedience, fight of faith and steadfastness to the command of The Father, Jesus, in freely going to His mutilation on the cross, gives witness and makes His great noble profession of faith before Pontius Pilate.

We Christians make our free willed profession of faith through our steadfastness to the Command of God as Jesus showed His free willed steadfast obedient faithfulness to the Command of the Father.

NAB 1TI 6:11
Instead, seek after integrity, piety, faith, love, steadfastness, and a gentle spirit. Fight the good fight of faith. Take firm hold on the everlasting life to which you were called when, in the presence of many witnesses, you make your noble profession of faith. Before God, who gives life to all, and before Christ Jesus, who in bearing witness made his noble profession before Pontius Pilate,** I charge you to keep God’s command** without blame or reproach until our Lord Jesus Christ shall appear.
Jesus Loves God

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[itsjustdave1988]

He certainly did make a noble profession. Where’s it say he had faith? What doctor, council, or pope ever taught such a thing?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Believe what you will, but I am more convinced by these men …

Pope Pius X: “We therefore desired that all teachers of philosophy and sacred theology should be warned that if they deviated so much as a step, in metaphysics especially, from Aquinas, they exposed themselves to grave risk.” (Doctoris Angelici)

Pope Leo XIII, citing Innocent VI: “those who hold to [the teaching of the Angelic Doctor] are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” (Aeterni Patris)

Pope Pius XI*:* “***if we are to avoid the errors which are the source and fountain-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be adhered to more religiously than ever.” ***(Studioum Ducem)

St. Thomas Aquinas: "It is written (Heb. 11:1): “Faith is the evidence of things that appear not.” But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (John 21:17): “Thou knowest all things.” Therefore there was no faith in Christ. " (Summa Theologica, 3, 7, 3)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Leo XIII encyclicals are magisterial. Divine assistance was given to them in a particular way when he wrote Aeterni Patris. I give my religious submission to this magisterial texts, since it was addressed to the whole Church from the Roman Pontiff, an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium to the universal Church.

So you are saying that Pope Leo XIII in his encyclicals say that Jesus did not have Faith? Then please supply a reference to the exact document so I can read it.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Byzcath,

I’ve given you what Leo XIII says …

Pope Leo XIII, citing Innocent VI: “those who hold to [the teaching of the Angelic Doctor] are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” (Aeterni Patris).

This was with regard to what you said:

Summa means nothing to me.

My point is that what you assert regarding the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas is contrary to what many popes have taught in magisterial texts. Furthermore, what you assert with regard Jesus having faith is contrary to the Angelic Doctor. Given what Pope Leo XIII teaches in accord with Aeterni Patris, I believe it safest to suspect you to be in error.

Of course, if you have another doctor other than St. Thomas Aquinas, or a pope, or a council that teaches otherwise, please share such evidence with us.

Along with the past decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, there were two books on the altar before the Council of Trent: the Bible, and the Summa Thoelogica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Your statement that the Summa means nothing to you is rather disconcerting given this fact, and given that Pope Pius XI asserted: “***if we are to avoid the errors which are the source and fountain-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be adhered to more religiously than ever.” ***(Studioum Ducem)

I recommend you reconsider your views of St. Thomas’ authority, perhaps reading the following from various popes:

Leo XIII - Aeterni Patris
Studiorum Ducem (Study Leader) by Pope Pius XI 29 June 1923 St. Thomas Aquinas
Pius X, Doctoris Angelici

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

Byzcath,

I’ve given you what Leo XIII says …

Pope Leo XIII, citing Innocent VI: “those who hold to [the teaching of the Angelic Doctor] are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.” (Aeterni Patris).

This was with regard to what you said:

Summa means nothing to me.

My point is that what you assert regarding the authority of St. Thomas Aquinas is contrary to what many popes have taught in magisterial texts. Furthermore, what you assert with regard Jesus having faith is contrary to the Angelic Doctor. Given what Pope Leo XIII teaches in accord with Aeterni Patris, I believe it safest to suspect you to be in error.

And it stands as Aquinas is fully western and has nothing for the East. I know this will shock you but Aquinas is not required for entry into our seminary (the Byzantine (Ruthenian) one) and the Melkites send their seminiarians to Holy Cross Greek Orthodox seminary. I do not know the requriements for the Ukrainian seminary but I am sure it is not much different.

Of course, if you have another doctor other than St. Thomas Aquinas, or a pope, or a council that teaches otherwise, please share such evidence with us.

Do not need. As this is no a defined dogma we are free to believe as we will. Just as with the Mother of God, we are free to believe that she died, or did not die, before she was bodily assumed into Heaven.

Along with the past decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, there were two books on the altar before the Council of Trent: the Bible, and the Summa Thoelogica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Your statement that the Summa means nothing to you is rather disconcerting given this fact, and given that Pope Pius XI asserted: “***if we are to avoid the errors which are the source and fountain-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be adhered to more religiously than ever.” ***(Studioum Ducem)

I recommend you reconsider your views of St. Thomas’ authority, perhaps reading the following from various popes:

Again, Aquinas is not part of the Eastern Tradition. I do not know how to express this in any other way. Seems this is another area where Latins wish to hold us to.

We have been called to return to our Traditions by the Holy Father. Until you can show me where us Byzantine Catholics are called to be Latins, then I will continue as I have been.

 

[Norwich_2]

Don’t you think that if you look for problems you will Find them.

If you look to work together with a common belief and sense of future in Christ. that all that you dont currently understand will be revealled to us. Who of us can say that we fully understand any of the scriptures.
Expeince, time and patience will unfold those things we dont know(which is considerable). the world is not flat anymore!! .

But dont look for things to divide us ar’nt we divided enough by culture, patriotism, belief, and of course plain ignorance.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ByzCath,

I’m not trying to hold you to any theology. You have to follow your own conscience on the matter.

I’m just asserting that you are wrong regarding Jesus having the virtue of faith for the reasons St. Thomas Aquinas states. You are free to disagree with him, however, as opinions go, his is more authoritative than yours.

Aeterni Patris was addressed to the universal Church, not just the west. In my opinion, you make yet another error in presuming that the “Summa means nothing to [you]”. St. Thomas Aquinas is the “universal doctor of the Church” (Pius XI) not just the doctor of the West. Do you have an eastern doctor who contradicts St. Thomas? If not, then while you are free to believe as you wish, I find Catholic doctrine from the Angelic, universal doctor of the Church to be more convincing.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

itsjustdave1988:

ByzCath,

I’m not trying to hold you to any theology. You have to follow your own conscience on the matter.

I really think you are as Aquinas is a western theologian using western theological thought.

I’m just asserting that you are wrong regarding Jesus having the virtue of faith for the reasons St. Thomas Aquinas states. You are free to disagree with him, however, as opinions go, his is more authoritative than yours.

If our hierarchs do not see the need to require Aquinas to enter our seminary I do not see a need to read him.

And while his may be more authoritative than mine, I do not see his opinion being echoed by the magisterium, actually with what I have showed from the the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes, I think they disagree with his opinion.

As yet, you have failed to show any magisterial documents that supports you view that Christ did not have faith.

As for me, the Catechism in paragraph paragraph 470 and its reference to Gaudium et Spes paragraph 22 (as I referenced in post #28), especially the following sentence from GS, “* Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.*”

Like to us in all things except sin, not like to us in all things except sin and faith.

 

[RSiscoe]

ByzCath:

I really think you are as Aquinas is a western theologian using western theological thought.

If our hierarchs do not see the need to require Aquinas to enter our seminary I do not see a need to read him.

And while his may be more authoritative than mine, I do not see his opinion being echoed by the magisterium, actually with what I have showed from the the Catechism and Gaudium et Spes, I think they disagree with his opinion.

As yet, you have failed to show any magisterial documents that supports you view that Christ did not have faith.

As for me, the Catechism in paragraph paragraph 470 and its reference to Gaudium et Spes paragraph 22 (as I referenced in post #28), especially the following sentence from GS, “* Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.*”

Like to us in all things except sin, not like to us in all things except sin and faith.

But your “interpretation” of what the Catechism says has never been taught by the Church. On the other hand, it has always been taught that Jesus possessed the beatific vision of God and therefore did not have faith. Why interpret that catechism to mean something that the Church has never taught? Why not interpret it so that it agrees with what has always been taught? Wouldn’t that be the safest thing to do?

And regarding St. Thomas not believing in the imaculate conception. It is true that in the Summa he taught that Mary was conceived in sin, but he also taught (in the same place), that she was imdediately cleansed from original sin. I think that is important to point out, because he did teach that she was free from all (actual) sin her entire life, and from original sin moments after her conception. In my opinion, that is a pretty minor mistake given the fact that he did not have an infallible dogma to guide him as we do today.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ByzCath:

And it stands as Aquinas is fully western and has nothing for the East. I know this will shock you but Aquinas is not required for entry into our seminary (the Byzantine (Ruthenian) one) and the Melkites send their seminiarians to Holy Cross Greek Orthodox seminary. I do not know the requriements for the Ukrainian seminary but I am sure it is not much different.

He is however a Doctor of the Universal Church: if we in the West can profit from the Eastern Fathers, and if it was possible for “Western” Fathers to do so - why should this be impossible now ? Hilary of Poitiers profited from Athanasius of Alexandria - Origen was an influence upon Bernard of Clairvaux. So why should the East be incapable of learning from St. Thomas ? No one is claiming that he has to be accepted in his entirety - if anyone were claiming that you “must” accept the Contra Errores Graecorum, or mistakes in his ascriptions of writings, or the inadequacies in (say) his pneumatology or his liturgiology, as God’s truth, you would have a point - but no educated person claims this.​

FWIW, his being a Doctor in no way stops Franciscans holding to the theology of their own Order: they do not have to become Dominicans - so why be afraid that studying St. Thomas will make you - or must make, or is is a stealthy way of making - you into Latins. If you think we are godless and subChristian barbarians, then for God’s sake, say so - that will at least clear the air, for then we shall know what Eastern Christians really think of us . ##

Do not need. As this is no a defined dogma we are free to believe as we will. Just as with the Mother of God, we are free to believe that she died, or did not die, before she was bodily assumed into Heaven.

As are we.​

Again, Aquinas is not part of the Eastern Tradition. I do not know how to express this in any other way. Seems this is another area where Latins wish to hold us to.

OTOH, Maximus Planudes (d. 1310) translated Thomas into Greek. (And Ovid - but that is another story.)Conversely, Nicolaus Cabasilas’ work on the Liturgy was read by the Fathers of Trent.​

I stand by what I said elsewhere about the importance of not imposing “Western” Mariology on “Eastern” ways of theological thinking about her - equally, no good is done by thinking or speaking as though “Eastern” and “Western” theology, piety, or liturgy (or anything else Christian, for that matter) had absolutely nothing in common or nothing whatever to contribute to each other. Unless of course the East is implying that Western Catholicism is, to be blunt, kopros. (See St. Paul, or consult a dictionary of NT Greek.)

I worry sometimes about the contempt (an Orthodox Christian on another board admitted that he “despised” mediaeval Western Christendom) of Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians for Roman Catholic theology, piety, or liturgy;“hatred” is hardly too strong a word - see Father John Romanides’s site for choice examples of anti-Roman sentiment.

I have a lot of concerns about some Catholic attitudes - but at least the CC has stopped despising any Liturgy other than the Roman - the older attitudes have yet to vanish among the laity, but in time, God helping, they will. Not least because of Leo XIII and his successors. The present Pope bends over backwards to be considerate of Orthodox susceptibilities - but all that happens is a volley of names such as “Antichrist”.

There are times when reading Orthodox and Byzantine remarks is eerily similar to reading the effusions of Chick and Co. ##

We have been called to return to our Traditions by the Holy Father. Until you can show me where us Byzantine Catholics are called to be Latins, then I will continue as I have been.

They aren’t - equally, a vast amount of what is now thought of as typically “RC” is not of Western origin: the Rosary, most Marian feasts, the first eight Councils, Christianity itself; to name but a few. Not that one would think so, to judge from the distaste for all things Western that seems so widespread among Byzantine Catholics & their Orthodox brethren.​

 

[Vincent]

ByzCath:

Vincent,
I can buy into this if the fact is that faith is no longer necessary when we see God face to face.

But I do not see any proof that the theological virtue become null and void at such a time.

Perhaps this is what you’re looking for:

“Such a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence do away with the acts of faith and hope in these souls, inasmuch as faith and hope are properly theological virtues. And after such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment has or will have begun for these souls, the same vision and enjoyment has continued and will continue without any interruption and without end until the last Judgment and from then on forever.”

—Pope Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus​