E
Elijahmaria
Guest
Let us not loose sight of the fact that there is a defining and clarifying and limiting component to apostolic constitutions, more than any kind of “formalizing” that might occur.
M.
- Status
M.
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
Personally, I think this is especially good insight: from beginning to end.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Good point. I was thinking about new age and modernism from the outside, not within. It is indeed a problem in our Church today.
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
I thought as much…
Let me take this moment to let you know that I enjoy your contributions here.
M.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I do not particularly believe in Limbo, but let me point out that it has always been conceived of as a “region” or “level” of hell, not a “middle place” in between heaven and hell. Proponants of the Limbo theory would agree that lack of baptism excludes one from the kingdom of heaven and eternal life. The souls in Limbo, if the theory is correct, take part in neither.
V
Vico
Guest
And even those that do not use the Limbo theory, such as Augustine. He taught that unbaptized infants go to hell, but they suffer only the mildest condemnation.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right, well a small look at history
The Immaculate Conception is not new or modern. And I’ll show its Patristic and orginates in both churchs since their was one church at the time, and btw and from very early on. Now the fact is the IC following became overwhelming by the Council of Basil in the 14th. Bought about is first dogmatic constitution. Which btw the Pope woundn’t accept due to the fact its wasn’t a ecumenical council. However, the laity refused to acknowledge this and continued pressing on with the veneration. This intensified though the Saints as Loius DeMontfort and Duns Scotus the Camelite Orders etc and of course the Apparition’s thus “Miracles”.
What in truth finally bought about a Dogmatic statement is do to history and a climatic atmosphere of the period which in truth is no different than todays period with Fatima and the same climatic atmosphere presented by the laity. For in truth the church works from in inside and the outside. However let us look at HIstory and what it states…
First the heresy of Arianism fought to large degree by St Athanasius Pope of Alexandria conlcudes the father and son are are “one”. And of course the Saint dealt with the divinity of the HS. Concluding the God was consubstantial with the Son as was the Holy Spirit, thus the doctrine of the Trinity. So Mary who the plan of God for Salvation was set into motion through Her fiat thus Full of Grace could not have been in a state of sin for the Word to become flesh. And the word became for flesh for the “Redemption of Mankind” thus “original sin”. Of course the other heresy early on which relates to this, was the Apollinarist which in essense which is God “Plus” flesh or God surrounded by Flesh. Which is defined by the Hypostatic Union, fully Human fully Divine. Thus God didn’t simply pass through a Stained Mary untouched and fully Divine, but took on a fully Divine Nature and fully Human Nature.
However as Athanasius continues he explains the Christ/God did not “need” to become fully human, He did not need to change to be exhalted, He took upon Himself the form of “servant” by completely humbling himself as God. He undertook this feat to show man the lesson of how to defeat the human condition. though he had no sin, he suffered and felt and cried as any human and had doubt as we see on the Cross. Undertaking death of the flesh for “redemption” this did not happen against the Glory of the Godhead, but to the Glory of the Godhead, and God the Father proclaimed, this is my Son, whom I AM well pleased. Thus taken Flesh of the Virgin Mary becomes the language of Devotion. Mary is the gurantee of the true Humanity of Christ
Commemoration of Mary or MNEME {Greek} dates to early 5AD Sunday after X-Mass festival to Honor Mary. Again Athanasius refers to this date in His awareness of the Marys death or dormition. Thus her entry into Heaven and later the Assumptiom. Here again early on we see Marys part in the History of Salvation. Thus the Commemoration of Mary or "Chreia- a givin fact of history and salvation Mneme- a given fact of existed observation was a simple fact a life very early in the church. Christ being God was promoted back to God after performing on erath the mission the mission for which he had been sent. Man was Dead in Original Sin thus redemption was the purpose of the passion.
Iranaeus 130-200 Just as through a Virgin who disobeyed {Eve} Mankind was Stricken, Fell and Died, so to was it through a VirginMary} who obeyed the Word of God, mankind was restored to life. Christ came back to seek the lost sheep, and its was mankind that was lost. Just as Adam had necessarily to be absorbed in Christ, that mortality be absorbed in immortality, Eve had necessarily to be absorbed in Mary. Virginal Obedience distroyed Virginal Disobedience.
St. Gregory of Nyssa Death- 386 The gift of Him was pronounced by Him who see’s the secrets of a man to be greater than any prophets “John the Baptist”. Christ said “No Mothers Son”… “never has there appeared of earth a Mothers Son greater than John the Baptist”. However, one Mother Daughter was Greater than any Mothers Son or Daughter, namely Mary, the Mother of God, Mary without Stain. Gregory spoke on Eastern Christianity of the entire dispensation “oikonomia” of the Salvation of the World in its fallen state of Original Sin.
Devotion to Mary found ist Supreme expression in the Byzantine Christianity, “then” went on to exert influence in the Western Church. For example with fathers like Ambrose of Milan. Divine Qualities was indeed the right words for Her as Theotokos, it is ultimate significance as is every Heavenly promise, and could not be fully acheived by anyone here on Earth. Mary is positive proof that it could be truly achieved. Truly through not fully, and in this world Her portrayal in Icons is eveidence of the fact of this, as was the “Magnificant” sung at the Morning Office of the Greek Church. Those of whom the Word of God came was pre-eminently true of Mary.
Most of the venue for the development of both devotion and doctrine of the Virgin Mary originates in the Christian East, Syriac, Coptic, Aremenian and Greek.
Mary was Immaculately Conceived because what Nature had not given Her, the Grace of God Accomplished in Her. It was in Marys case alone the method of Redemption of Original Sin by preservation was judged the most fitting, as Mary was Full of Grace before being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Therefor Her “restoration” was not an act of suppling what had been lost by Original Sin, but was an act in increasing by God what Mary “already” had…Full of Grace and a known from past/present/future by I AM.
Peace
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
BTW Trent …“Sin tranformed to the Human Race in occordance with the Human Law. Additionally added it was NOT the intention of the Council to include St Mary to the Universality of Original Sin”.
Theotokos dates to 319 in Alexandria Continues on the Liturgy of St Basil the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom invoking Marys intercession. Above all the Hymn “Akathistos” multiplied the celebration as the Unveiled Bride
St John of Damascus addressed the issue of Idol Worship which fell upon the “Byzantine Church” 8, 9 and 10th century. Thus the writtings of St Augustine again are used to defeat heresy with his work on Latreia, Douleia etc.
Mother of God becomes another serious matter especially today in many Protestant denominations. And for centurys they have tried to ignore St Mary and avoid discussion through lack of charity, love and the call to Christians by Christ to Love your Neighbor as You Love Yourself.
This is a serious matter. To call Mary the Mother of Jesus and to refuse to call Her the Mother of God is to diminish Jesus thus God as well as Mary. For it is denial that Jesus is fully Human/Divine, It was this thinking that formed the definition of the Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus 431-AD. As Gospel tells us the Word did not Unite with Man, but was Made Man and through Bleesed Virgin Mary thus the Mother of God. All Grace thus flowed through Mary, by the Will of God as Christ in full humility, to man in redemption of original sin. And thus all Grace continues to flow through Mary by the Will of God. God being the Divine Master can dispense His Grace as He so Wills, and through scripture and time He chose Mary to dispense His Grace. And all generations will call Her Blessed.
I find it strange Protestants would assume to discuss Uncle Fred and Aunt Lillian in Heave but refuse to acknowledge the Mother of God. At the Cross The Blessed Mother Becomes the Mother of all man and All Saints. Perhaps a closer reading of scripture would indicate “exactly” what was said.
At the Wedding of Cana what “really” happened. Many would assume Jesus has total indifference for His Mother by calling Her Woman, such folly. But this is
the apathy bought about in this generation. For in truth this is impossible of Christ as is the Commandments and the Will of God and the very nature of Jesus. Jesus Christ at the wedding of Cana completes the prophecy of Genesis and also of Revelation which is yet to come by calling Her Woman. The ministry of Christ is ushered in by St Mary, with a simple set of words. “They have no more wine” in a simple statement Mary understood the three day feast was to last seven days, thus the awkward situation. Mary also understood now was the time to start the trial of ministry and the Kingdon to come. Jesus states “Woman my time has not yet come” What was Jesus Time? His time and purpose by the Will of the Father was redemption on the Cross, the Blood of the everlasting life. At Cana Christ turns Water to Wine, and at the Cross Wine to the Blood of the Everlasting Life. St Marys exists with Words “Do whatever He tells you” Words that reverberate through History. For His trial is your trial. And to walk through the fire, and come out the otherside the only path is complete observence and obedience to what He tells you and is the Will of God, thus the Mystical Body of Christ. The reality of the Blessed Mother isn’t dimished in time, its exhalted by the will of God. Man on earth are simply subjected to the Will of God should one chose to prevailm free-will is always the option, His Saints and Miracles produce the Way and the Path when any question arrives in His Kingdom. His ways are not our thus complete understanding is not needed.
It suffice to say the Gates of hell will not prevail, and that certainly includes “ALL” heresy.
There are many mysteries in the Kindom of God and much to learn in the Mystical Body to that which we do not know and thus cannot disprove, we are compelled to follow in obedience, for to act in any opther way is to follow temptation. And that is not of God. There is no pat on the back for obedience, there is no reward in this physical world only cynical critism. For true humility and obedience makes one smaller and smaller, but larger and larger in True Love of God.
St Theresa of Avila put it well though I will have to paraphrase…
First we learn to have the greatest fear of offending God, and we must continue to pray in worship, to not allow us to fall. especially when the terrible consequence is known.
Second in the mirror of humility we must see that any and all good we do has its source, not of ourselves but rather in the spring where this tree, which is your Soul, is planted, and in the Sun which spreads it radiance on our works. For once you see and know this than you will also know any good does not come from you, but from our Lord, Without his help we are powerless. Praise God for all your good, never give a second thought of it to yourself.
Peace
Theotokos dates to 319 in Alexandria Continues on the Liturgy of St Basil the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom invoking Marys intercession. Above all the Hymn “Akathistos” multiplied the celebration as the Unveiled Bride
St John of Damascus addressed the issue of Idol Worship which fell upon the “Byzantine Church” 8, 9 and 10th century. Thus the writtings of St Augustine again are used to defeat heresy with his work on Latreia, Douleia etc.
Mother of God becomes another serious matter especially today in many Protestant denominations. And for centurys they have tried to ignore St Mary and avoid discussion through lack of charity, love and the call to Christians by Christ to Love your Neighbor as You Love Yourself.
This is a serious matter. To call Mary the Mother of Jesus and to refuse to call Her the Mother of God is to diminish Jesus thus God as well as Mary. For it is denial that Jesus is fully Human/Divine, It was this thinking that formed the definition of the Mother of God at the Council of Ephesus 431-AD. As Gospel tells us the Word did not Unite with Man, but was Made Man and through Bleesed Virgin Mary thus the Mother of God. All Grace thus flowed through Mary, by the Will of God as Christ in full humility, to man in redemption of original sin. And thus all Grace continues to flow through Mary by the Will of God. God being the Divine Master can dispense His Grace as He so Wills, and through scripture and time He chose Mary to dispense His Grace. And all generations will call Her Blessed.
I find it strange Protestants would assume to discuss Uncle Fred and Aunt Lillian in Heave but refuse to acknowledge the Mother of God. At the Cross The Blessed Mother Becomes the Mother of all man and All Saints. Perhaps a closer reading of scripture would indicate “exactly” what was said.
At the Wedding of Cana what “really” happened. Many would assume Jesus has total indifference for His Mother by calling Her Woman, such folly. But this is
the apathy bought about in this generation. For in truth this is impossible of Christ as is the Commandments and the Will of God and the very nature of Jesus. Jesus Christ at the wedding of Cana completes the prophecy of Genesis and also of Revelation which is yet to come by calling Her Woman. The ministry of Christ is ushered in by St Mary, with a simple set of words. “They have no more wine” in a simple statement Mary understood the three day feast was to last seven days, thus the awkward situation. Mary also understood now was the time to start the trial of ministry and the Kingdon to come. Jesus states “Woman my time has not yet come” What was Jesus Time? His time and purpose by the Will of the Father was redemption on the Cross, the Blood of the everlasting life. At Cana Christ turns Water to Wine, and at the Cross Wine to the Blood of the Everlasting Life. St Marys exists with Words “Do whatever He tells you” Words that reverberate through History. For His trial is your trial. And to walk through the fire, and come out the otherside the only path is complete observence and obedience to what He tells you and is the Will of God, thus the Mystical Body of Christ. The reality of the Blessed Mother isn’t dimished in time, its exhalted by the will of God. Man on earth are simply subjected to the Will of God should one chose to prevailm free-will is always the option, His Saints and Miracles produce the Way and the Path when any question arrives in His Kingdom. His ways are not our thus complete understanding is not needed.
It suffice to say the Gates of hell will not prevail, and that certainly includes “ALL” heresy.
There are many mysteries in the Kindom of God and much to learn in the Mystical Body to that which we do not know and thus cannot disprove, we are compelled to follow in obedience, for to act in any opther way is to follow temptation. And that is not of God. There is no pat on the back for obedience, there is no reward in this physical world only cynical critism. For true humility and obedience makes one smaller and smaller, but larger and larger in True Love of God.
St Theresa of Avila put it well though I will have to paraphrase…
First we learn to have the greatest fear of offending God, and we must continue to pray in worship, to not allow us to fall. especially when the terrible consequence is known.
Second in the mirror of humility we must see that any and all good we do has its source, not of ourselves but rather in the spring where this tree, which is your Soul, is planted, and in the Sun which spreads it radiance on our works. For once you see and know this than you will also know any good does not come from you, but from our Lord, Without his help we are powerless. Praise God for all your good, never give a second thought of it to yourself.
Peace
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Just a passing throught on “puratory” per scripture.
1 Peter 3:18-20
The reason why Christ died for our sins once and for all, the just man for the sake of the unjust, was that He might lead you to God. He was put to death insofar as fleshly existence goes, but was given life in the realm of the spirit.
It was in the spririt also that he went to preach to the spirits in prison “purgatory”.
They had disobeyed as long ago as Noahs day, while God pateintly waited until the Ark was built. At that time a “few” persons, eight in all escaped the Dark through the water.
You are now saved by a baptismal bath whichs corresponds to this exactly. This Baptism is no removal of physical stain, but the pledge to God of an irreproachable conscious through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Thus their would have been no need for Chirst to desend into hell to preach, for no-one was leaving the eternal damnation.
Of course their are many verse’s which coincide with purgatory and scripture. Just happened to come to this one. The Mystics of the Church do not describe this of a place of joy, but of perpetual penace.
Peace
1 Peter 3:18-20
The reason why Christ died for our sins once and for all, the just man for the sake of the unjust, was that He might lead you to God. He was put to death insofar as fleshly existence goes, but was given life in the realm of the spirit.
It was in the spririt also that he went to preach to the spirits in prison “purgatory”.
They had disobeyed as long ago as Noahs day, while God pateintly waited until the Ark was built. At that time a “few” persons, eight in all escaped the Dark through the water.
You are now saved by a baptismal bath whichs corresponds to this exactly. This Baptism is no removal of physical stain, but the pledge to God of an irreproachable conscious through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Thus their would have been no need for Chirst to desend into hell to preach, for no-one was leaving the eternal damnation.
Of course their are many verse’s which coincide with purgatory and scripture. Just happened to come to this one. The Mystics of the Church do not describe this of a place of joy, but of perpetual penace.
Peace
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
Something is off with the sequencing of this thread…Has there been a thread merge here?
C
Catherine_Grant
Guest
There was a thread split. These were off-topic in a thread asking for advice on whether to attend a Roman Catholic Mass for the feast of the Immaculate Conception.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Well said!
G
Ghosty
Guest
Indeed. The word Limbo even means “on the edge”. Los Angelas is on the “limbo” of the United States, for example.
Peace and God bless!
A
Aramis
Guest
The 418AD meeting of the Council of Carthage, in response to Pelagianism, stated that All persons are born with the sin of Adam… even without personal sins, they need salvation through baptism. (Can 108-110) It also said than grace is required to do good (c.113) and that death arises from sin (c. 109).
Asa regional council, it would be merely interesting, were it not for HH Pope Innocent I ratifying and promulgating it… And Pope Zosimus questioning it, then upholding it.
Therefore, Mary could be free from personal sins by her prenatal an perpetual mega-dose of grace, but still not free from ancestral sin, tho’ even that was light in effect upon her.
At least if one’s theology holds to the papally ratified canons and avoids their anathemae…
newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm lists al the various carthaginian councils’ canons…
E
Elijahmaria
Guest
Catholic Church says that the grace that allowed the Virgin to be immaculate prevented her from being touched by Original Sin.
It was meet, He could do it, so He did it.
No contradiction at all.
V
Vico
Guest
It is suprising that the east would not understand the difference between the concepts of reatus poena and reatus culpa since they are two terms from Justinian legal system Corpus Juris Civilis. Justinian I was Byzantine Emperor 527 to 565 A.D. Clearly one can have a penalty for something that someone else did.
Roman law reatus means liable to or indicted or a sentence, and that Culpa means actual act of wrongdoing. Reatus means state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa.
The Justinian terms taken by the Church are used this way:
Reatus poena is punishment for sin (removed by penance)
Reatus culpa is guilt-debt of culpability (removed by absolution)
Original sin inherited is reatus poena but without reatus culpa; we inherit the sentence not the culpability. The reatus poena is culpa contracta: contracted fault. It is Latin culpa, which is guilt in the moral sense, i.e. blameworthiness or ill desert, ailpa, and the Latin reatus, guilt in the legal sense, i.e. liability or obligation to punishment.
Ineffiable Deus used the phrase “originalis culpa labe”, which is “original fault stain” for the stain of original sin, which is the culpa contracta.
Latin reus (from res) originally meant a party in a cause, but changed later to defendant or accused, then even later it meant one condemned, liable to suffer the penalty of the law. So Reatus means liability to punishment on account of sin. The imputation of guilt to others than the sinner himself, does not use culpa (the moral sense) but reatus (the legal sense).
See The Biblican Doctrine of Sin by James S. Candlish, D.D., 1893.
Related Latin nouns:
reus (genitive reī); m, second declension
*]defendant, accused
*](archaic) plaintiff
reātum
*]*accusative singular of *reātus
reātus (genitive reātūs); m, *fourth declension
*]accusation, charge
*rea (genitive reae); f, first declension
P
Palamas
Guest
Eastern Orthodoxy does believe in the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. However, for all subsequent persons, we are not cupable nor do we share in the guilt of the Original Sin of
Adam or Eve. We do suffer the effects wrought by the Original Sin. Hence, we suffer death, pain, hunger, lust, all of the passions and all the negative effects found in the created universe brought about by the Original Sin. We are only held guilty for the sins that we, as individual persons, commit. We baptize infants, not because they are guilty of anything, but because we want our children to share the gift that God grants freely to all. For us the baptism cleanses us of the spiritual effects, and to the degree deemed appropriate by God, the physical effects of the fall. Baptism is the first step for the Orthodox in becoming a member of the Church. At the same liturgical initiation, we also chrismate the new born child, and then we give him his first communion. Now he is fully a member of the Orthodox Church.
We believe all persons suffer the effects of the Original Sin and we believe, as Holy Scripture says, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, including Saint Mary, Theotokos. But of course, as you know, this is also what St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and other doctors of the Roman Catholic Church had taught, concerning the conception of the Theotokos. They emphatically argued against the belief in the immaculate conception of Holy Mary. Consequently, we also believe she died, fell asleep in the Lord, like all humans have. After her falling asleep and burial, she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, by her Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we learn that St. Thomas did not make it to her funeral and burial. When he did arrive late, he asked to see her body one last time. Upon opening her tomb, all present discovered an empty tomb. Holy Mary had been take up to heaven already. She is the first fruit our Lord’s salvific action.
Adam or Eve. We do suffer the effects wrought by the Original Sin. Hence, we suffer death, pain, hunger, lust, all of the passions and all the negative effects found in the created universe brought about by the Original Sin. We are only held guilty for the sins that we, as individual persons, commit. We baptize infants, not because they are guilty of anything, but because we want our children to share the gift that God grants freely to all. For us the baptism cleanses us of the spiritual effects, and to the degree deemed appropriate by God, the physical effects of the fall. Baptism is the first step for the Orthodox in becoming a member of the Church. At the same liturgical initiation, we also chrismate the new born child, and then we give him his first communion. Now he is fully a member of the Orthodox Church.
We believe all persons suffer the effects of the Original Sin and we believe, as Holy Scripture says, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, including Saint Mary, Theotokos. But of course, as you know, this is also what St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and other doctors of the Roman Catholic Church had taught, concerning the conception of the Theotokos. They emphatically argued against the belief in the immaculate conception of Holy Mary. Consequently, we also believe she died, fell asleep in the Lord, like all humans have. After her falling asleep and burial, she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, by her Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, we learn that St. Thomas did not make it to her funeral and burial. When he did arrive late, he asked to see her body one last time. Upon opening her tomb, all present discovered an empty tomb. Holy Mary had been take up to heaven already. She is the first fruit our Lord’s salvific action.
P
Palamas
Guest
I would like to make a comment on the usage of the term Byzantine, which is not about the immaculate conception issue. I know that I am fighting a losing battle but I would like to set the record straight. The term Byzantine is not used by the Orthodox Church and has not been used by the Orthodox Church at any time in its history to identify the Orthodox Church. While Orthodox theologians and historians such as John Meyendorf have use the term, it because the term has become so prevalent in the writings of western scholars when talking about the Roman Empire in the east and about the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Empire in the east, centered at Constantinople, never used the term Byzantine or Byzantium to identify itself or describe itself. Down to 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Muslim Turks, the Orthodox emperor in Constantinople always considered himself to be the Roman emperor and all documents from his court used the term Roman emperor and Roman Empire to describe himself and the place over which he was sovreign.
The use of the term Byzantine and Byzantium to describe the Roman Empire in the east has been an ongoing efffort by the West to denigrate and demean the true status and importance of the Eastern Roman Empire, starting with Charlemagne. Charlemagne could hardly claim to be the Holy Roman Emperor if there were reigning emperor in Constantinople, as there was. So starting with Charlemagne, the continued existence of the Roman Empire was seen as an embarassment to the Franks claim to the imperial title. They began to attack the Eastern Roman Empire as being not truly Roman, but Greek, hence Byzantine, after the old Greek name of Constantinople. 400 years, St. Thomas Aquinas, not knowing the rewriting of history by the Franks, address his arguments concerning the supposed effors of the Orthodox Church, not to the Orthodox, but to the Greeks. This is weird and funny from an Orthodox viewpoint because Orthodoxy at this time had not become identified in the east with any particular ethnic or language group. As further proof of this new naming, the Turks always considered the empire centered in Constantinople as the Roman Empire. After the fall of Constantinople, Turks place each religious group into a millet. All Orthodox Christians were place into the Rum millet, the tribe of the Romans. It did not matter what your ethnic group was. If you were Orthodox Christian, you were Roman. The Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, etc. were not recognized as a separate millet. They were Orthodox, hence they were Romans.
Again, I do not hope to change the terms of discussion on these pages. I just wanted Roman Catholics to know Orthodox Christians do not consider themselves to be Byzantine in any way. I do not know who or when the term began to be used to describe formerly Orthodx Christians who decided to follow the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. Orthodox Christians do not like the term and consider it a negative, not a positive appelation.
The use of the term Byzantine and Byzantium to describe the Roman Empire in the east has been an ongoing efffort by the West to denigrate and demean the true status and importance of the Eastern Roman Empire, starting with Charlemagne. Charlemagne could hardly claim to be the Holy Roman Emperor if there were reigning emperor in Constantinople, as there was. So starting with Charlemagne, the continued existence of the Roman Empire was seen as an embarassment to the Franks claim to the imperial title. They began to attack the Eastern Roman Empire as being not truly Roman, but Greek, hence Byzantine, after the old Greek name of Constantinople. 400 years, St. Thomas Aquinas, not knowing the rewriting of history by the Franks, address his arguments concerning the supposed effors of the Orthodox Church, not to the Orthodox, but to the Greeks. This is weird and funny from an Orthodox viewpoint because Orthodoxy at this time had not become identified in the east with any particular ethnic or language group. As further proof of this new naming, the Turks always considered the empire centered in Constantinople as the Roman Empire. After the fall of Constantinople, Turks place each religious group into a millet. All Orthodox Christians were place into the Rum millet, the tribe of the Romans. It did not matter what your ethnic group was. If you were Orthodox Christian, you were Roman. The Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, etc. were not recognized as a separate millet. They were Orthodox, hence they were Romans.
Again, I do not hope to change the terms of discussion on these pages. I just wanted Roman Catholics to know Orthodox Christians do not consider themselves to be Byzantine in any way. I do not know who or when the term began to be used to describe formerly Orthodx Christians who decided to follow the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope. Orthodox Christians do not like the term and consider it a negative, not a positive appelation.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
What you just said is in full agreement with the position of the Catholic Church on original sin. “Original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants” - Catechism of the Catholic Church 405.
The analysis above on this very page explains what is meant by western theology’s purely analogous language of inherited guilt.
I’ve heard many Orthodox Christians testify that the Theotokos is in fact sinless. I usually only hear the opposite when they’re being cautious not to appear to agree with the Roman Catholic Church…
So? Many Orthodox bishops of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries emphatically believed in the Immaculate Conception. It’s as ridiculous for you to cite St. Thomas against the Catholic Church on this matter as it would be for me to cite eighteenth century Orthodox history against the common Orthodox attempt today to deny the Immaculate Conception.
Indeed!
I don’t think any Catholic will argue with you on that. To be quite frank, whether the eastern Roman Empire should be regarded as “Roman” or “Greek/Byzantine” is not an issue for us. In fact, it seems like a bizarre worldly preoccupation. Christ’s Church on earth transcends earthly boundaries anyway; the Roman Empire - as you probably know - wasn’t even the first state to formally adopt Christianity. Does it matter who gets to have the “real” Roman emperor? No.
- Status