Original Sin

[Myhrr]

Continued to RBushlow

melkite.org/role.htm#tawil

THE COURAGE TO BE OURSELVES

To our beloved children, the priests and faithful of the Melkite Church in the United States, peace in Christ our Lord, greetings and blessings.

OUR INCOMPARABLE PATRIMONY
ECUMENICAL VOCATION OF EASTERN CATHOLICS

By our fidelity to maintaining our patrimony, by our refusal to be assimilated, the Eastern Churches render a most precious service to Rome in still another area of Church life. Latinizing this small number of Easterners would not be a gain for Rome; rather it would block - perhaps forever - a union of the separated Churches of the East and West. It would be easy then for Orthodoxy to see that union with Rome leads surely to ecclesiastical assimilation."

‘‘We have, therefore, a two-fold mission to accomplish within the Catholic Church. We must fight to insure that latinism and Catholicism are not synonymous, that Catholicism remains open to every culture, every spirit, and every form of organization compatible with the unity of faith and love. At the same time, by our example, we must enable the Orthodox Church to recognize that a union with the great Church of the West, with the See of Peter, can be achieved without being compelled to give up Orthodoxy or any of the spiritual treasures of the apostolic and patristic East, which is opened toward the future no less to the past.’’

"One prime source of spiritual assimilation for Eastern Catholics has been the phenomenon known as ‘latinization’, the copying by Eastern Catholics of the theology, spiritual practices, and liturgical customs of the Latin Church. Latinization implies either the superiority of the Roman rite -the position denounced by Vatican II - or the desirability of the assimilation process, an opinion with which we cannot agree. Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin rite to manifest one’s Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church. As we have said above, to do this would be to betray our ecumenical mission and, in a real sense, to betray the Catholic Church.

“… We should all know in this regard that a latinized Eastern Church cannot bear anything but false witness, as it seems to be living proof that Latinism and Catholicism are indeed one and the same thing.”

In the description “latinization” the Melkites include the Infallibility dogma and the Supremacy dogma as defined in CCC 882 and 883 which if enforced on the Melkites would indeed by living proof that Latinism and Catholicism are one and the same thing.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

**882 **The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 **883 **“The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

So, like the Orthodox, the Melkites reject these dogmas, do you think that it’s possible for Rome to change this?

 

[Matt16_18]

**Myhrr **

As usual, when you are confronted with something that you cannot answer (in this case, my post # 324), you resort to your favorite tactic - i.e. flood the thread with irrelevant and off topic material.

Other than being highly rude and annoying when you do this, you fool no one. You are rude, because your postings destroy the continuity of the discussion at hand. But that, of course, is what you desire. You do this because you are trying to cover up your obvious inability to address the questions directed to you.

Everyone can see that you continually attempt to redirect all converstations on this board to your inane straw men arguements so that you can spew out the bile of your hatred of the papacy.

 

[Myhrr]

**Myhrr **

As usual, when you are confronted with something that you cannot answer (in this case, my post # 324), you resort to your favorite tactic - i.e. flood the thread with irrelevant and off topic material.

Other than being highly rude and annoying when you do this, you fool no one. You are rude, because your postings destroy the continuity of the discussion at hand. But that, of course, is what you desire. You do this because you are trying to cover up your obvious inability to address the questions directed to you.

Everyone can see that you continually attempt to redirect all converstations on this board to your inane straw men arguements so that you can spew out the bile of your hatred of the papacy.

Matt, I answered you in post 327:

Profound understanding" are your words, not mine. However, with the intelligence I’ve got - the direction my musings on all this so far have taken me to think of these events in the light of God’s teaching Abraham about sacrifice, learning and adjustment, and so I think this thread can be followed through the rest of the accounts. Moses you’ll recall smashed the first tablets in frustrated anger, went back for advice…

As for the rest of your diatribe against me, I once replied to a posting from Greg where he was erroneously giving the impression that G.K. Chesterton meant the Orthodox Church by his title ‘Orthodoxy’, which was an aside from him in this discussion, and once to a direct question from RBushlow adding to the information Father Ambrose had given him. While waiting for your reply to my post…

I think it’s up to E-catholic to decide about this, and since we haven’t heard from her we can only assume that she’s having a drink at the bar, which Greg set up, content to follow it as it is, of course, that’s just wishful thinking, she’s probably bored with the lot of us and gone home.

 

[Myhrr]

Matt, I’m not unaware that my arguments can hurt just as you’re not unaware of the effect an understanding of EENS can have when you argue for it. Not only from Orthodox, but also from some of those in your own Church who fail to take into account previous doctrine which you’re familiar with and have incorporated into Vat II. I understood what you meant in all those subsists in arguments with Deacon and the rest.

I did, briefly, hate your Church, not the people, but the ‘entity’ of it, but as He’s my witness I hated God more.

We’re in two very different Churches, the more I learned about the differences the harder it was to see any way we could ever be in communion of faith.

Here I don’t mean because we disagree with doctrines such as Original Sin or the filioque or Immaculate Conception, but that our reality of Christ is different. I posted this earlier but didn’t explain what a tetrapod is, it’s a small table in the Church on which an Ikon is placed, which is kissed on entering and other times.

The full tradition with respect to the tetrapod is to approach it, make two bows with the Sign of the Cross reciting the Jesus Prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner,” then kiss the Cross saying “Glory to Thy Precious and Life-Giving Cross, O Lord and to Thy Holy Resurrection!” and then kiss the Icon next to it.

Then we make the bow and the Sign of the Cross with the Jesus Prayer again.

We also do this on our way to the Priest to receive his Blessing and kiss the Cross he is holding in his hands.

We say the prayer to the Cross before we kiss it as well, telling the Priest immediately afterwards, “Forgive me for the sake of Christ!”

As we turn around, we slightly bow to the people on our left (their right) and say “Christ is among us!” and then to our right, “He is and will be!”

**Dr. Alexander Roman **

We didn’t do all that, but we understood it all as a given. For us Christ isnot ‘absent except in the Bishop of Rome’.

He’s ever present with us as He promised, Christ is in our midst! how can your Church possibly expect us to give up our reality for yours? Why would we want to?

But now your dogmas have grown into a monster of monsters for us. Where in any of your infallible teaching authority is there a way for us to be one Church with you without being utterly destroyed by you?

Mother of God protect us both

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr

You are still avoiding giving an answer to my question. You and Father Ambrose have tried to paint the Catholic Church as something monstrous because she speaks of God’s anger against sin. But the Old Testament is full of references of God’s anger against those who wilfully commit sin, and the Orthodox claim that the Old Testament is also scripture inspired by God. I would like to see how YOU deal with the quotes I posted and avoid a neoMarcionism in your answers.

You use these forums to post your screeds, and to make wild accusations about what Catholics believe, yet, when asked to explain the Orthodox alternative on a particular issue, you avoid direct answers like the plague. The reason that you do that is simple, you have no alternative to present. You can try to pass this off as an Orthodox love of “mystery”, but divine mystery is something that is much different than human vacuity and shallow theology.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

because she speaks of God’s anger against sin. But the Old Testament is full of references of God’s anger against those who wilfully commit sin, and the Orthodox claim that the Old Testament is also scripture inspired by God.

Scripture speaks of God in anthropophatic ways. It ascribes human emotions to God. God is angry, God is sorrowful, God grieves, etc. This is God using a way of language which we can comprehend but in fact as the Fathers teach God is impassible. When the Bible describes God as angry we must remember that this is an accomodation to our limited understanding.

Saint Clement of Alexandria (died 210) has some useful teaching on this matter of God’s impassibility.

If you have Acrobat Reader installed you can read something of his teaching at
http://www.ses.edu/journal/issue1_1/1.1Culver.pdf

 

[GAssisi]

Bless me, Father.

Your reply to Matt16 is rather specious. Do you mean to say that Catholics are unaware that God is impassable? If Matt16 wrote that God is angry, it is only because Scripture uses those terms. If I had your mentality, I might as well assert that you deny what Scripture teaches. But I won’t sink to that level. In fact, Matt16 could use even more powerful language, couldn’t he, and it STILL would not get to the heart of how much opposed to sin God in His very Nature is!

I am sorry, Father, but your triumphalistic attitude can quench the Spirit sometimes.

God bless,

Greg

 

[prodromos]

GAssisi:

I am sorry, Father, but your triumphalistic attitude can quench the Spirit sometimes.

Are we reading the same posts?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I am sorry, Father, but your triumphalistic attitude can quench the Spirit sometimes.

My apologies if I come across as triumphalistic at times. Nevertheless, although we carry our treasure in earthern vessels, it is still a priceless treasure - the faith of the Apostles.

On the Sunday which we call “The Triumph of Orthodoxy”
(the first Sunday of the Great Fast)
the whole Orthodox world sings in joy and triumph…

As the prophets beheld,
As the Apostles have taught,
As the Church has received
As the teachers have dogmatised,
As the Universe has agreed,
As Grace has shown forth,
As Truth has revealed,
As falsehood has been dissolved,
As Wisdom has presented,
As Christ Awarded, thus we declare,
Thus we assert,
Thus we preach Christ our true God…

This is the Faith of the Apostles,
This is the Faith of the Fathers,
This is the Faith of the Orthodox,
This is the Faith which has established the universe.

 

[GAssisi]

Bless me, Father.

I don’t mind at all if you believe the Orthodox Church is the true Church and that she teaches the true Faith. What I do find triumphalistic is when you refuse to acknowledge the common Faith that we have, and try to preach to the choir things that you should realize our Churches already share in common – e.g., such a basic teaching as the impassibility of God.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Myhrr]

Myhrr
You are still avoiding giving an answer to my question. You and Father Ambrose have tried to paint the Catholic Church as something monstrous because she speaks of God’s anger against sin. But the Old Testament is full of references of God’s anger against those who wilfully commit sin, and the Orthodox claim that the Old Testament is also scripture inspired by God. I would like to see how YOU deal with the quotes I posted and avoid a neoMarcionism in your answers.[/UNQUOTE]

I’d have to refresh my memory, even of what little I’ve followed, of Marcionism so whether you’d see my reply as neo that I have no idea.

The Orthodox see Holy Scripture as useful.

My reply post 327 was in accordance with that and I also found a page which was a precis of the kind of view of history I came to in meditating on the OT angry God.

I’ve been thinking about this a long time, since I was ten, when I began rejecting this God because I thought he was unfair to Moses after all he’d done for Him; just because he got a bit annoyed with the children of Israel badgering him for water and struck the rock in anger God refused him entry into the promised land. If that wasn’t bad enough of God, a little later, we were taking it in turns to read in class, we came to reading God’s instructions to slaughter every man, woman and child to take the promised land for themselves. I was appalled, in shock, the horror; I decided then and there I didn’t want anything to do with such a horrible God and told him so! Of course, when one’s only ten that moment of rejecting what was to me my only God, since we were being taught about him, can be quite frightening in itself. I’d just discovered that my God was nasty and unfair and I’d rejected him, it didn’t take much logic for me to begin to be afraid… At the moment I began to feel overwhelmed by my decision and beginning to wonder what that meant for me in the yawning dark emptiness opening up I remembered I still had Jesus and his God was love and the fear left. Oh, that’s all right then, I thought, must be a different God…

We’ve begun to look at how that angry God came into existence in the RCC from Augustine. His misreading was because he wanted it to explain the OT angry God he found in ‘scripture inspired by God’, and in his determination to make sense of his own existence in relation to that he deliberately, he says so, rejected the Church’s teaching around him which said he didn’t have to explain our existence as a creation of an wrathful God that demanded obedience and killed if his creation disobeyed, but that we’re a creation in the image and likeness of God with free will, a creation God saw was good.

But he believed his reading of scripture and his personal revelation about this superior to what was being taught by the Church, the fathers arguing against him; in his way he was the first protestant sola scriptura osos etc… And how did he then fit a good God into his schema? Predestination, this God of his predestined some to salvation and sent Jesus to accomplish it, but only for those like him. Predestined to be saved no matter what he did because it was God’s will that he was saved, he was one of those who wasn’tdamned to eternal hell whatever the others would have liked if they’d had a choice, but they didn’t have a choice. His God had saved him and the Church was his instrument of salvation and in this Church God was loving, love God and do what you will…

But where did this angry God in the OT come from? In the link I posted it talks about the influence on Judaic thinking from those Jews who came back from Babylon when suddenly the Torah that was lost was found again, reappeared behind some stone or other fully incorporated with all the penalties demanded by God for disobeying his laws…

continued

 

[Myhrr]

Continued to Matt16_18

You and Father Ambrose have tried to paint the Catholic Church as something monstrous because she speaks of God’s anger against sin.[/UNQUOTE]

By your own description your Church is monsterous. You paint your own picture. Where has your God led you? To Unam Sanctam, an office in a person of a bishop has become your supreme God on earth. A God that demands obedience to him and sanctifies the slaughter of heretics rejecting him.

Where has our God led us? To…, wondering how long is long in longsuffering…

You use these forums to post your screeds, and to make wild accusations about what Catholics believe, yet, when asked to explain the Orthodox alternative on a particular issue, you avoid direct answers like the plague. The reason that you do that is simple, you have no alternative to present

. You can try to pass this off as an Orthodox love of “mystery”, but divine mystery is something that is much different than human vacuity and shallow theology.[/UNQUOTE]

Is the above I posted more what you’re expecting from me?

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matt16,

I thought we both agreed that Myrrh is only imposing the Protestant understanding of Augustine on the Catholic Church. Why bother to discuss it further? Nothing we can say will change his mind that there is no difference between the Catholic reading of Augustine and the Protestant reading of Augustine. Don’t waste knowledge on someone who will not be taught.

I pray that the Admins see the uselessness of this thread and close it.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr

• The Orthodox see Holy Scripture as useful.*

Useful? The Orthodox see scripture as being more than usesful, they see is as the divinely inspired word of God.

• Oh, that’s all right then, I thought, must be a different God…*

Marcion would be proud of you!

• I was appalled, in shock, the horror; I decided then and there I didn’t want anything to do with such a horrible God and told him so! Of course, when one’s only ten that moment of rejecting what was to me my only God, since we were being taught about him, can be quite frightening in itself. I’d just discovered that my God was nasty and unfair and I’d rejected him, it didn’t take much logic for me to begin to be afraid…

That was your understanding of God in the OT when you were ten. Do you have the same childish understanding of the OT as an adult? Do you understand why the Book of Job is considered Wisdom literature?And the LORD said to Job: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?He who argues with God, let him answer it.”
Job 40:1-2

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom
Psalm 111:10

• We’ve begun to look at how that angry God came into existence in the RCC from Augustine.*

No, you have merely created a straw man out that you call “Augustine”. St. Augustine did not write the OT. If the writings of the Catholic Church speak of God’s anger against unrepentant sinners, you cannot blame St. Augustine for that.

• But he believed his reading of scripture and his personal revelation about this superior to what was being taught by the Church …*

You are projecting on to Augustine what you are guilty of yourself! It is you that has the strange interpretations of scriptures, i.e. that Adam and Eve were subject to death and decay before the Fall, that Hinduism is an “intelligent spirituality” that Christians should study to understand Jesus, etc.

But I can understand why you think that YOUR weird interpretations of scriptures are authoritative. You are a natural product of Orthodoxy’s heretical belief that the laity possesses the ultimate temporal authority vested in the Church. The Orthodox believe that the laity must “approve” the teachings of her bishops promulgated at an Ecumenical Council . Yes, the Orthodox believe in the primacy of the laity, though they will never admit it, since the Orthodox believe that the laity must “approve” an Ecumenical Council before the council is known to be valid.

The Orthodox are quite incapable of explaining the details of how it is that the laity give their “approval” to an Ecumenical Council, or which Church Father ever spoke of such a thing, or where the scriptures speak of the laity approving the teachings of the Apostles before those teachings were binding on the whole church. The complete inability of the Orthodox to explain their belief that the laity are the ultimate temporal authority in determining the validity of doctrine doesn’t phase the Orthodox at all. You have accepted this lie of Orthodoxy, and you believe that as a lay person that YOUR interpretations of scripture must be accepted by the rest of the world. As I said, you are a natural product of Orthodoxy. the tree is known by its fruit
Matt. 12:33

 

[Matt16_18]

GAssisi:

Dear Matt16,

I thought we both agreed that Myrrh is only imposing the Protestant understanding of Augustine on the Catholic Church. Why bother to discuss it further? Nothing we can say will change his mind that there is no difference between the Catholic reading of Augustine and the Protestant reading of Augustine. Don’t waste knowledge on someone who will not be taught.

I pray that the Admins see the uselessness of this thread and close it.

God bless,

Greg

Myhrr is a she, not a he. The “Beliefnet refugees” know Nina under her login names as Whynot, Snowflake, goat1, etc. Many of the Orthodox that posted at the Beliefnet Orthodoxy boards had as much problem with Nina’s flaky theology as the Catholics.

Something useful has indeed come out of this discussion. Because of Beliefnet refugees that have argued in the past with Nina, those posting to the Catholic Answers Forums can now understand a little more about Myhrr and her screeds, and what to expect in the future from Myhrr. I predict that Myhrr will try and change every discussion where she posts into a discussion about the primacy of Peter. Look at how many times she has already tried to change this thread from a discussion about Original Sin to an attack on the papacy.

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18:

Look at how many times she has already tried to change this thread from a discussion about Original Sin to an attack on the papacy.

Your papacy is modelled on Augustine’s God, one which demands obedience, complete submission of will and intellect, you’re not allowed to think for yourselves or argue with your infallible magesterium. You have no free will.

Augustine didn’t like Pelagius telling him that either, it’s all connected.

If you don’t like my arguments then don’t argue with me, but I don’t see why I have to put up with your personal attacks because you have an attitude problem. There is a private message system here which you can use for such posts instead of derailing the discussion with personal abuse.

I’m taking this discussion seriously, if you continue to show that you’re unable to exercise a modicum of self-control in our exchanges I’ll leave. I’ll make my judgement when I see your reply to my next post.

I’ll come back to your post to me later this evening.

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

Your papacy is modelled on Augustine’s God, one which demands obedience, complete submission of will and intellect, you’re not allowed to think for yourselves or argue with your infallible magesterium. You have no free will.

This is an entirely predictable response from you, instead of discussing the topic at hand, Original Sin, you post yet another screed about brain dead Catholics having no free will or the ability to think for themselves.

Augustine didn’t like Pelagius telling him that either, it’s all connected.

The more you post, the more it is obvious that you are a Pelagian. If you want to defend a Pelagian theology of grace on a thread about Original Sin, then go for it. I am sure we would all be interested in a proof that the Orthodox are Pelagian heretics.

If you don’t like my arguments then don’t argue with me, but I don’t see why I have to put up with your personal attacks because you have an attitude problem.

I don’t like your arguments because they are full of error. If you are going to post doctrinal error in a Catholics apologetics forum, then expect to have your errors refuted. It is your arguments that I don’t like, not you personally.

Don’t try to make this personal, because it isn’t. I don’t know you personally, I only know you through what you have posted on the Beliefnet boards and the Catholic Answers Forums. If I knew you personally, I might find you a pleasant enough person, but hey, I have Mormon neighbors and Muslim coworkers that are pleasant enough people that I get along just fine with. Because a person is pleasant, it doesn’t follow that they don’t also believe heresy.

I’m taking this discussion seriously…

Then how about answering my questions to you instead of trying to change the topic of this thread to an attack on the papacy? As an ADULT do you have a different understanding of God’s justice as it is portrayed in the OT than you had as a ten-year-old child?

 

[Myhrr]

Matt16_18:

As an ADULT do you have a different understanding of God’s justice as it is portrayed in the OT than you had as a ten-year-old child?

Good bye Matt

Good bye is short for God be with ye.

 

[Matt16_18]

Myhrr:

Good bye Matt

Good bye is short for God be with ye.

Bye-Bye. And God be with you too.

 

[RBushlow]

Continued to RBushlow
So, like the Orthodox, the Melkites reject these dogmas, do you think that it’s possible for Rome to change this?

I believe that they not only have their own catechism but their won Cannon Law separate from the Western Rite Cannon Law. So this should not be a hinderence, even if some folks at EWTN think so.