N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m seeing by the Catholics fighting this, that all of you also agree with Steve’s logic that if a site says something it must be true, am I wrong on this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dvdjs
Guest
No. Paraphrasing to alter the interpretation is simply falsifying. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick. No one’s buying it.A paraphrase doesn’t alter the meaning, though it enhances a certain interpretation, in this case a literalistic interpretation.
The paraphrase is not wrong.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I haven’t examined Steve’s argument. Are you paraphrasing it, too?I’m seeing by the Catholics fighting this, that all of you also agree with Steve’s logic that if a site says something it must be true, am I wrong on this?
V
Vico
Guest
"Nine_Two:
For Catholic sources, I think most will look for approval:
Nihil Obstat means nothing hinders.
Imprimatur means let it be printed.
For Catholic Encyclopedia source:
Ecclesiastical approbation.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
It means it was checked and approved to print. Can there still be defects? Yes.
It is wise to consider that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not print an authoritative a list of dogmas of faith. What I see is that the most authortative statements that people rely upon are the dogmatic definition of the Councils, and other documents found in sources such as Enchridion Symbolorum by Denzinger, authors such as Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19871116_guidelines-bible_en.html
2.8. **IMPRINT AND IMPRIMATUR **
An interconfessional edition of the Scriptures normally bears the imprint of the Bible Society and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority. The most appropriate form for such an edition published by the Bible Societies would be for the Bible Society imprint to occur on the title page and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic authority to occur on the back of the title page, this being the normal procedure for books properly authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. In some circumstances it may be wise to consider a preface including a joint recommendation by ecclesiastical authorities instead of a formal *nihil obstat *and imprimatur.
If you’d read my portion of this argument you’d see I state that I’m using the logic which Steve used in his Polemics. If as he states the writings on an Orthodox site must be accepted as literal and true, then the writing on a Catholic site must also be literal and true. Unless you accept his first statement, I have no argument with you.
A site is not always accurate, so although a site says something it may not be true. The statements “on an Orthodox site must not be accepted as literal and true”, rather they must be investigated. Each Church and each bishop may have a different view. Same for Catholic.I’m seeing by the Catholics fighting this, that all of you also agree with Steve’s logic that if a site says something it must be true, am I wrong on this?
For Catholic sources, I think most will look for approval:
Nihil Obstat means nothing hinders.
Imprimatur means let it be printed.
For Catholic Encyclopedia source:
Ecclesiastical approbation.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
It means it was checked and approved to print. Can there still be defects? Yes.
It is wise to consider that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not print an authoritative a list of dogmas of faith. What I see is that the most authortative statements that people rely upon are the dogmatic definition of the Councils, and other documents found in sources such as Enchridion Symbolorum by Denzinger, authors such as Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19871116_guidelines-bible_en.html
2.8. **IMPRINT AND IMPRIMATUR **
An interconfessional edition of the Scriptures normally bears the imprint of the Bible Society and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority. The most appropriate form for such an edition published by the Bible Societies would be for the Bible Society imprint to occur on the title page and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic authority to occur on the back of the title page, this being the normal procedure for books properly authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. In some circumstances it may be wise to consider a preface including a joint recommendation by ecclesiastical authorities instead of a formal *nihil obstat *and imprimatur.
K
Ken_Hendrickson
Guest
Economy is a legal term.Now about legalism. The fact that you’re referring to baptism as being “valid” or “invalid” shows that you’re thinking legalistically. “ Valid “ is a legal term. It is very true, legalism not only causes division but it makes our focus on law instead of grace. “Economy” is possible because grace does not come through law. Economy has always been used by the Bishops because, as St. Basil in his first canon explains, it is actually possible to get in the way of someone’s salvation by being too strict in regards to the canons.
Oikos == house
Nomos == law
Lord Have Mercy
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Exactly, so I have no argument with you.A site is not always accurate, so although a site says something it may not be true. The statements “on an Orthodox site must not be accepted as literal and true”, rather they must be investigated. Each Church and each bishop may have a different view. Same for Catholic.
For Catholic sources, I think most will look for approval:
Nihil Obstat means nothing hinders.
Imprimatur means let it be printed.
For Catholic Encyclopedia source:
Ecclesiastical approbation.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor.
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
It means it was checked and approved to print. Can there still be defects? Yes.
It is wise to consider that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not print an authoritative a list of dogmas of faith. What I see is that the most authortative statements that people rely upon are the dogmatic definition of the Councils, and other documents found in sources such as Enchridion Symbolorum by Denzinger, authors such as Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19871116_guidelines-bible_en.html
2.8. **IMPRINT AND IMPRIMATUR **
An interconfessional edition of the Scriptures normally bears the imprint of the Bible Society and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority. The most appropriate form for such an edition published by the Bible Societies would be for the Bible Society imprint to occur on the title page and the imprimatur of the appropriate Roman Catholic authority to occur on the back of the title page, this being the normal procedure for books properly authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. In some circumstances it may be wise to consider a preface including a joint recommendation by ecclesiastical authorities instead of a formal *nihil obstat *and imprimatur.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
You probably should then, because I am attacking his logic, by applying it to Catholicism. If you think the logic I’m using is wrong, then I suggest you rein in your co-religionists, rather than attacking others simply for belonging to another church, without reading the context of the argument.I haven’t examined Steve’s argument. Are you paraphrasing it, too?
K
Ken_Hendrickson
Guest
In the Christian east, a married man may be ordained a priest, but a priest may not get married. The marriage has to occur before ordination. This rule is ancient.Something about that situation does not make sense. There is and has been for the past 50 years a shortage of priests in the Roman Catholic Church and there are said to be 150,000 priests living today who left the Roman Catholic Church to get married; so if Eastern Catholic priests can be married why not Western Catholics? I would imagine if the Eastern Orthodox are reconciled, they will also be accepted without being celibate.
Therefore, those Roman Catholic priests who have left the priesthood to become married men have forsaken their vows, and are in quite a different position than married priests in the Christian east.
Lord Have Mercy!
V
Vico
Guest
Originally Posted by JohnVIII forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
…“ Valid “ is a legal term. It is very true, legalism not only causes division but it makes our focus on law instead of grace. “Economy” is possible because grace does not come through law. Economy has always been used by the Bishops because, as St. Basil in his first canon explains, it is actually possible to get in the way of someone’s salvation by being too strict in regards to the canons.
Originally Posted by Ken Hendrickson forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Economy is a legal term.
Oikos == house
Nomos == law
Lord Have Mercy
In the canons licit and valid are both legal terms used, but the mysteries may be valid but not licit. For example see CCEO 834 below. Economy cannot be exercised on all matters, for example divine law, like valid consent of marriage.
CCEO Canon 834
…“ Valid “ is a legal term. It is very true, legalism not only causes division but it makes our focus on law instead of grace. “Economy” is possible because grace does not come through law. Economy has always been used by the Bishops because, as St. Basil in his first canon explains, it is actually possible to get in the way of someone’s salvation by being too strict in regards to the canons.
Originally Posted by Ken Hendrickson forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Economy is a legal term.
Oikos == house
Nomos == law
Lord Have Mercy
In the canons licit and valid are both legal terms used, but the mysteries may be valid but not licit. For example see CCEO 834 below. Economy cannot be exercised on all matters, for example divine law, like valid consent of marriage.
CCEO Canon 834
- The form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed if at least one of the parties celebrating the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or was received into it.
- If, however, a Catholic party enrolled in some Eastern Church celebrates a marriage with one who belongs to an Eastern non-Catholic Church, the form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed only for liceity; for validity, however, the blessing of a priest is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
D
dvdjs
Guest
What provoked my attention and prompted me to write was your claim that the Catholic church views Eastern Catholics who do not recite the filioque as heretics. The idea is nonsense, as are your arguments. I didn’t notice my co-religionist making such an objectionable claim - just you; that’s why I replied to you. I am not sure what you feel that you can prove with such flat-out nonsense. Perhaps you should try a different approach.You probably should then, because I am attacking his logic, by applying it to Catholicism. If you think the logic I’m using is wrong, then I suggest you rein in your co-religionists, rather than attacking others simply for belonging to another church, without reading the context of the argument.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I looked back over the thread - yes, I tune out on toll-house discussions.
But the review confirms my idea that you need a different approach.
Steve points cites clear writings of orthodox on toll-houses. You respond with:
Try something else.
But the review confirms my idea that you need a different approach.
Steve points cites clear writings of orthodox on toll-houses. You respond with:
(post #281) The problem is that your source does not say Eastern Catholics are heretics. Even with your twists and spin, it just doesn’t say that.I can find you an article written by a Latin on the internet that says Eastern Catholics are heretics.
Try something else.
D
dvdjs
Guest
And by the way, please get to your priest and have him set you straight on this:
(post #281)The Ecumenical Councils of the Church are the only authority we hold infallible on this earth. Anything they did not deal with IS opinion.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
One of these days I’m going to find the place where I read that one of the popes declared that ‘strictness’ was a ‘heresy’! That if the intention was to perform a sacrament in the Church and some detail was left out the sacrament could not be repeated but must be considered valid. Of course, if the Church took this attitude about the sacrament of marriage it no longer would be possible to get annulments! I have come to the conclusion that annulments are in fact not valid because the heresy of strictness must be used to do them! But they are done only to give legal grounds to let someone have a second chance after the failure of a first marriage. It therefore is really no different then the EO ‘Church Divorce’ done likewise to give someone a second chance. The only real difference is the action is justified in the West via a loophole using strictness, but in the East they declare it so via Economy. So the East doesn’t fall into the heresy of strictness, and the West doesn’t fall into the mortal sin of divorce.…Economy cannot be exercised on all matters, for example divine law, like valid consent of marriage…
Which is better or worse? I have no clue. It is not a given that heresy is ALWAYS the worst sin. Here’s a little quote from ‘The Latter of Divine Assent’:
A very well-informed man once put this question to me: “Leaving aside murder and the denial of God, what is the most serious of sins?”
“To lapse into heresy,” I replied.
“In that case,” he said, “why does the Catholic Church readmit heretics who have honestly come to reject their beliefs? Why are they deemed fit to share in the holy Mysteries when, by contrast, a man who has committed fornication is excluded from these sacred Mysteries for a number of years, and this by the direct command of the Apostolic Canons, even though he may have not only confessed but even abandoned his sinful ways?”
(The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 15)
N
Nine_Two
Guest
As I said, perhaps you should try reading the context of the argument. As it stands if someone reads the whole argument it looks like you have double standards.What provoked my attention and prompted me to write was your claim that the Catholic church views Eastern Catholics who do not recite the filioque as heretics. The idea is nonsense, as are your arguments. I didn’t notice my co-religionist making such an objectionable claim - just you; that’s why I replied to you. I am not sure what you feel that you can prove with such flat-out nonsense. Perhaps you should try a different approach.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It says those who reject “filioque” (which it must mean the term, since the East has always accepted that the Holy Spirit comes through the Son, which is what Western Catholics have said has always been the interpretation) are in error, earlier it refers to heretics in Constantinople in the context of the filioque, pretty clear to me.I looked back over the thread - yes, I tune out on toll-house discussions.
But the review confirms my idea that you need a different approach.
Steve points cites clear writings of orthodox on toll-houses. You respond with:
(post #281) The problem is that your source does not say Eastern Catholics are heretics. Even with your twists and spin, it just doesn’t say that.
Try something else.
As for Steve’s sites, as was also pointed out, they don’t come from an authoritative site, I have at least given an authoritative site.
I take it though, that you do agree with Steve that if a website says something, it must be true? Since afterall you accept the authority of websites on a subject when those closer to the source reject them.
How about you set me straight on this. What dogma do Orthodox hold that doesn’t have the backing of an Ecumenical Council?And by the way, please get to your priest and have him set you straight on this:
V
Vico
Guest
Valid, pertaining to divine law, and licit, pertaining to Church law. The canons do specify that the mystery of matrimony is only to be given once for the baptised (while both spouses are in the flesh), just as baptism is only given once. The problem is that consent could be imperfect, so the marriage celebrated with licit form is presumed valid unless proven otherwise. If the divine law was not fulfilled, then there was not a valid marriage. The validity is not hindered by leaving out a non-essential. What people call anullments may actually be lack of form, which is not an anullment but rather no marriage was celebrated. There are anullments based upon lack of proper consent. Proper consent is required (including knowledge of what that is and the ability to give it), no undispensed impediments can exist, and celebrated form approved (or dispensed) by the Church.One of these days I’m going to find the place where I read that one of the popes declared that ‘strictness’ was a ‘heresy’! That if the intention was to perform a sacrament in the Church and some detail was left out the sacrament could not be repeated but must be considered valid. Of course, if the Church took this attitude about the sacrament of marriage it no longer would be possible to get annulments! I have come to the conclusion that annulments are in fact not valid because the heresy of strictness must be used to do them! But they are done only to give legal grounds to let someone have a second chance after the failure of a first marriage. It therefore is really no different then the EO ‘Church Divorce’ done likewise to give someone a second chance. The only real difference is the action is justified in the West via a loophole using strictness, but in the East they declare it so via Economy. So the East doesn’t fall into the heresy of strictness, and the West doesn’t fall into the mortal sin of divorce.
Which is better or worse? I have no clue. It is not a given that heresy is ALWAYS the worst sin. Here’s a little quote from ‘The Latter of Divine Assent’:
A very well-informed man once put this question to me: “Leaving aside murder and the denial of God, what is the most serious of sins?”
“To lapse into heresy,” I replied.
“In that case,” he said, “why does the Catholic Church readmit heretics who have honestly come to reject their beliefs? Why are they deemed fit to share in the holy Mysteries when, by contrast, a man who has committed fornication is excluded from these sacred Mysteries for a number of years, and this by the direct command of the Apostolic Canons, even though he may have not only confessed but even abandoned his sinful ways?”
(The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 15)
The unforgivable sin:
(NAB 1986) Matt 12:31-32:
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit * will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
- Blasphemy against the Spirit: the sin of attributing to Satan what is the work of the Spirit of God.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
You say:
…So all I’m saying is that annulments are a legal accommodation that allows the Sacrament to be repeated. According to a law the Sacrament never happened, but according to grace the Sacrament happened twice. An annulment avoids the braking of a law, whereas Economy is used to provide an exception to a law. Both ways deal with ‘law’, neither way deals with grace.
Then I don’t know why you said this:
And then you say:The validity [of a marriage] is not hindered by leaving out a non-essential.
…So these legalistic points are all “essential”? This is ‘strictness’, that is using laws to legally invalidate the grace of a Sacrament. Most of these ‘essential’ laws didn’t even exist prior to Trent. If a new council of the Church was held and set down laws essential to baptism then you could use those laws to annul baptisms as well! Then such a one would then have the legal right to be baptized again (because legally the baptism never happened in the first place). Don’t tell me there is a difference between Baptism & Marriage because you can only be baptized once, because how many times can you be married? (The answer is once!)What people call anullments may actually be lack of form, which is not an anullment but rather no marriage was celebrated. There are anullments based upon lack of proper consent. Proper consent is required (including knowledge of what that is and the ability to give it), no undispensed impediments can exist, and celebrated form approved (or dispensed) by the Church.
…So all I’m saying is that annulments are a legal accommodation that allows the Sacrament to be repeated. According to a law the Sacrament never happened, but according to grace the Sacrament happened twice. An annulment avoids the braking of a law, whereas Economy is used to provide an exception to a law. Both ways deal with ‘law’, neither way deals with grace.
Then I don’t know why you said this:
…I guess after elevating law above grace it is only fitting to then refer to some sort of condemnation. But since I put grace above law I will counter by referring to Gods mercy:The unforgivable sin:
(NAB 1986) Matt 12:31-32:
Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit * will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
- Blasphemy against the Spirit: the sin of attributing to Satan what is the work of the Spirit of God.
Psalm 136:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26:
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
“…His lovingkindness is everlasting…”
D
dvdjs
Guest
What a cheap shot. My standard is to tell the truth about my Church, against misinformation often given on this board. Steve did not insult my Church, you did.As I said, perhaps you should try reading the context of the argument. As it stands if someone reads the whole argument it looks like you have double standards.
D
dvdjs
Guest
“…which it must means…” “…in the context of…” “…pretty clear…” “…to me…” In other words it doesn’t say it. It does say that rejection of the filioque is an error - but you just fill in your own personal ideas of what “rejection” means. You idea is so manifestly contradicted by evidence, that you should be able to figure out that your idea is wrong. It also does refer to heresy, but on the context of rejecting papal authority.It says those who reject “filioque” (which it must mean the term, since the East has always accepted that the Holy Spirit comes through the Son, which is what Western Catholics have said has always been the interpretation) are in error, earlier it refers to heretics in Constantinople in the context of the filioque, pretty clear to me.
Steve accurately represented the contents of the sites he linked to; you did not. The issue of authority is moot, when the contents are being misrepresented.As for Steve’s sites, as was also pointed out, they don’t come from an authoritative site, I have at least given an authoritative site.
You have no basis to “take it”. I have said nothing about the little game of “imprimatur gotcha” played from the high ground being able to deny everything written outside of ecumenical councils - what fun. But please, at least stick to the text and stop inventing things that have no basis.I take it though, that you do agree with Steve that if a website says something, it must be true? Since after all you accept the authority of websites on a subject when those closer to the source reject them.
I am, btw, happy to join in a call for a moratorium on people speaking as though authoritative on required beliefs of people in other religions. Even though much of what is posted by the neo-Orthodox here often needs qualification or outright correction. The big problem would be: what would EOs post here if they were to stop telling Catholics what the writings of Catholic authors really mean, what they really have to believe, etc.
You change from “deal with” to “have the backing of”. So before this degenerates into mere word games, you tell me: What, precisely, do “deal with” and “backing of” entail?How about you set me straight on this. What dogma do Orthodox hold that doesn’t have the backing of an Ecumenical Council?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I would define a heretic as one who is error and refuses correction, maybe you Catholics have a different definition, normally I’d be accepting of this, but since Steve was intent on using Catholic definitions and applying them to Orthodoxy, I’m not going to be. I’m reading a Catholic document as an Orthodox and it says Eastern Catholics are heretics, and since Steve’s logic does not include provision for alternate definitions, either does mine.“…which it must means…” “…in the context of…” “…pretty clear…” “…to me…” In other words it doesn’t say it. It does say that rejection of the filioque is an error - but you just fill in your own personal ideas of what “rejection” means. You idea is so manifestly contradicted by evidence, that you should be able to figure out that your idea is wrong. It also does refer to heresy, but on the context of rejecting papal authority.
He may have been representing the contents of the site appropriately, but he was misrepresenting the importance of the sites,Steve accurately represented the contents of the sites he linked to; you did not. The issue of authority is moot, when the contents are being misrepresented.
You have no basis to “take it”. I have said nothing about the little game of “imprimatur gotcha” played from the high ground being able to deny everything written outside of ecumenical councils - what fun. But please, at least stick to the text and stop inventing things that have no basis.
Yes, I’d love it if Catholics would stop doing the same to Orthodox. Most of the Orthodox here don’t try to tell Catholics what their writings mean, but are simply trying to clarify it. Most of the Catholics are the same. I would also appreciate what you mean by “neo-Orthodox”?I am, btw, happy to join in a call for a moratorium on people speaking as though authoritative on required beliefs of people in other religions. Even though much of what is posted by the neo-Orthodox here often needs qualification or outright correction. The big problem would be: what would EOs post here if they were to stop telling Catholics what the writings of Catholic authors really mean, what they really have to believe, etc.
Apparently the word games have begun because I went back over what I wrote and I can’t see a distinction in the meaning between “deal with” and “backing of” as applied to the context, so instead of arguing semantics with you I’m going to tell you to correct me on whatever semantic whatever you interpreted the original post as meaning so I can figure out what you’re on about.You change from “deal with” to “have the backing of”. So before this degenerates into mere word games, you tell me: What, precisely, do “deal with” and “backing of” entail?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.