G
GAssisi
Guest
If he does, I’ll just sick Dom Chapman on him! 
Greg
Greg
- Status
M
Myhrr
Guest
John says, (are you telling him you know better?):
15:26 But when the Comforter** is** come, whom** I will send** unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Christ was teaching them for forty days after the Resurrection, Acts 1:3, before his Ascension. During those days he was not always with them, Peter was out fishing for example, for that time, temporarily, they received the Holy Ghost through Him, but they were still not baptised with the Holy Ghost. St John the Divine was one of them! He contradicts you.
See above. This is what the Orthodox mean in the ol’ filioque arguments - the Son isn’t the eternal principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. Temporarily means in time, in time through the Son to them for a specific reason, for a time, to keep them all together while they waited for the Ascension and Pentecost.
They received the Holy Spirit temporarily to** represent** Christ, to act, speak, **on behalf of, not in place of. It was not vicarious. And. **It was given to all of them, not to Peter alone. He breathed on them, said to them.
Did he give Peter this in Matthew 16-20? No. Christ was talking of a future time, I will build My church, I will give you the keys, not I am building, not, I give you.
And, having just read it again, at the end of the Divine’s Gospel Christ tells Peter to mind his own business - is that giving authority over the other disciples??
Show me something in Scripture that doesn’t contradict your claims.
M
Myhrr
Guest
M
Matt16_18
Guest
I see that you do not understand what John means by “glorified” in his Gospel. In John’s Gospel, Jesus came into his glory on the Cross, not the Ascension. The Apostles could not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before the blood of the Lamb of God was shed, and Jesus had to resurrect from the dead before the Apostle could receive the Holy Spirit. Which is exactly what they received on Easter Sunday in John’s Gospel.
This quote is concerns the temporal procession of the Holy Spirit. The temporal procession of the Holy Spirit informs what we know about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. This quote actually supports the Catholic doctrine behind the filioque.
John doesn’t contradict me at all. I know plenty of validly baptized Christians that have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit long before they receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. When adults get the baptism of the Holy Spirit the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit begin to manifest - praying in tongues, prophesying, miracle working, etc.
The Apostles did not receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. That Peter and John were not manifesting the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit immediately after they received the Holy Spirit is nothing unusual. Many Christians don’t manifest the charismatic gifts until they “stay in Jerusalem and pray”.
M
Myhrr
Guest
To glorify means to praise. It’s a word used often in the NT, it’s the word of choice to use for praising God - when the people saw Christ’s miracles they praised God, Christ said he would return in glory.
I’m still looking for teaching about ‘indwelling’ from you, from your Western fathers from Augustine to Aquinas, is there anything in the Council of Trent to explain this?
Luke explains it as “the promise”, and he says that it was also given to them when Thomas was together with the others, when Christ enlightened them to the meanings in Scripture. Or are you saying here that Thomas was excluded from this ‘indwelling’? Through Christ, the Son, but always from the Father. Did the Son send the Holy Ghost at his own baptism? The filioque creates a confusion of persons.
As I also like to remind people. God is not a tame animal in the control of men, there were some in the early years who the Apostles acknowledged had already received the Holy Ghost and because of that were baptised. And of course many examples previous to all that, our Mother of God was full of grace, and still is, the Holy Spirit wasn’t absent from the times in the OT, but still, we’re talking about Christ and he said he could not send it from the Father until he had Ascended - that’s the whole reason for his incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension - the culmination at Pentecost - the birthday of the Church in which we glorify Christ our God.
That’s when they began working. Is the Holy Ghost absent from the Church now, the members of Christ? All the work of the Church continues to be an expression of grace through our various gifts. But they did not get the ‘indwelling’ of the Holy Ghost until Pentecost, before that it was as a promise of this, from the Father through Christ, enlightenment to keep them together until Pentecost when that promise was fulfilled.
They received it for a time until Christ could send the Holy Ghost from the Father, to each of them and so it continues to each of us in our baptism of John with water and baptism of Christ with the Holy Ghost.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Essence and Energies
I stumbled on this web page. It has an interesting collection of links to articles.
geocities.com/jej89/orthodoxlinks.html
It has a small number of links to essays which deal with the Divine Essence and Energies, but they are not light reading…
The Distinction Between the Divine Essence and Energies
Fr. Georges Florovsky (d. A.D. 1979), *St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers *orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_palamas.aspx
Fr. John Romanides (d. A.D. 2001), *Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics *romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.01.htm
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ~A.D. 202), , Book IV, 20:1,5Against Heresies ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P8366_2336690
Matthew Steenberg, The Cappadocian Fathers on Essence and Energy and the Knowledge of Godweb.archive.org/web/20030418195835/www.monachos.net/patristics/epinoia_ennoia.shtml
**Go down to the next section to find links to **
articles on Original Sin
**Original Sin
Afanasy Bailey, Inherited Guilt?
Fr. Georges Florovsky (d. A.D. 1979), The Darkness of Night
Fr. Gregory Hallam, Ancestral Sin and Salvation
Fr. John Romanides (d. A.D. 2001), Original Sin According to St. Paul
**
I stumbled on this web page. It has an interesting collection of links to articles.
geocities.com/jej89/orthodoxlinks.html
It has a small number of links to essays which deal with the Divine Essence and Energies, but they are not light reading…
The Distinction Between the Divine Essence and Energies
Fr. Georges Florovsky (d. A.D. 1979), *St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers *orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_palamas.aspx
Fr. John Romanides (d. A.D. 2001), *Notes on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics *romanity.org/htm/rom.15.en.notes_on_the_palamite_controversy.01.htm
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ~A.D. 202), , Book IV, 20:1,5Against Heresies ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm#P8366_2336690
Matthew Steenberg, The Cappadocian Fathers on Essence and Energy and the Knowledge of Godweb.archive.org/web/20030418195835/www.monachos.net/patristics/epinoia_ennoia.shtml
**Go down to the next section to find links to **
articles on Original Sin
**Original Sin
Afanasy Bailey, Inherited Guilt?
Fr. Georges Florovsky (d. A.D. 1979), The Darkness of Night
Fr. Gregory Hallam, Ancestral Sin and Salvation
Fr. John Romanides (d. A.D. 2001), Original Sin According to St. Paul
**
M
Myhrr
Guest
Rhetoric? Are you becoming persuaded then? Hmm, can you give examples or explain when I was ‘communicating a point persuavisely’ and I’ll certainly try to be more consistent.
As far as I know it’s been the Orthodox Church that has continued to remind everyone of the theology of the incarnation, but I’m sure Father Ambrose is pleased that you’re leaving the emphasis on the death of Christ as substitutionary atonement.
Matt himself has taught me much about the Catholic and my response was apt, addressed to him, I understand what he means by Peter…
How does that relate to Christ’s incarnation?
Christ’s specific instructions were against the Apostles creating a monarchical reality among themselves in the Church, no one of them was to lord it over or exercise authority over another or over any other members. We’re in the same house of God is how the Church understands Christ’s incarnation, Firmilian explains. Grafted on, as Peter explains.
Christ is always with us, wherever two or three are gathered in His name, He’s here with us now. He is not absent. We’re in the Kingdom of God and Christ is our King.
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
Is E-Catholic still around? I would hate to think that we are usurping his thread with discussions of baptismal theology and Palamite metaphysics if he is still interested in understanding the differences (if any) between Catholic and Orthodox thoughts on Original Sin. On the other hand, if he has already left the premises, then I guess that the thread is ours to do with what we will (I am toying with the idea of installing a mini-bar over in the corner over there; you folks prefer gin or vodka in your martinis?).
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Myrrh,
Please see the thread on Chrismation and Confirmation
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13319
and in particular Post No. 12
I call upon you to witness in these sacramental words the true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the nature of Original Sin. - that at Baptism an infant is chrismated for the “remission of all sins.” Since an infant has NO sins of his own, it is only the sin of Adam which is being remitted.
The truest and most trustworthy teaching of any Church is that which is given in its sacred sacramental ceremonies. As Article 1234 (given by you above) expresses it: “By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about in each newly baptized person. …”
It is Original SIN which is remitted at Baptism.
Please see the thread on Chrismation and Confirmation
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13319
and in particular Post No. 12
May Almighty God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, He who has regenerated you by water and the Holy Spirit, and given you remission of all sins, anoint you with the chrism of salvation, in the same Christ Jesus our Lord, unto life everlasting.
I call upon you to witness in these sacramental words the true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the nature of Original Sin. - that at Baptism an infant is chrismated for the “remission of all sins.” Since an infant has NO sins of his own, it is only the sin of Adam which is being remitted.
The truest and most trustworthy teaching of any Church is that which is given in its sacred sacramental ceremonies. As Article 1234 (given by you above) expresses it: “By following the gestures and words of this celebration with attentive participation, the faithful are initiated into the riches this sacrament signifies and actually brings about in each newly baptized person. …”
It is Original SIN which is remitted at Baptism.
M
Myhrr
Guest
Gin please, vodka is best unmixed. And the best martinis I’ve ever had were in Fleet Street -mixed by an Italian barman …
So where did original sin start? Tertullian actually coined the phrase, but Augustine ran with it and it’s coloured the perception of Christ as it developed in the West. The other day I found a page rebutting the Calvanist view and as I read down the page of Churches and their teachings it gave in defence I grew more and more horrified, the differences between Calvin and the RCC et al were splitting hairs, the basic error was intact.
All these Churches had bought into Augustine’s revelations which he thought above reason to the extent of insisting revelation superior even if it contradicted Christ’s words and Scripture; he thought his understanding above the oiks of the Church around him… as did the Gnostics, and his thinking came from his loins. I think Pelagius was right, Augustine didn’t really give up his Manichaean view, he just incorporated it into his personal revelation of original sin.
Let’s take a look at the RCC from Trent.
- You are required to believe as infallible dogma that the first man Adam transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise and immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted and that he incurred through that offence the wrath and indignation of God and consequently death with which God had previously threatened him, and together with death, captivity under the power of the devil, and the entire Adam through that offence was changed in body and soul for the worse. Any who do not confess to the above are under RCC anathema.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
This compilation has more on Augustine and Pelagius, but you’ll need to bear in mind that Paul has been misunderstood by the West because of Augustine’s mangling, most of the analyses coming from Western sources don’t know about Orthodox teaching.
sullivan-county.com/news/mine/augustine.htm
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
After all these years, we finally agree on something…
M
Myhrr
Guest
…God moves in mysterious ways His wonders to perform…After all these years, we finally agree on something…
G
GrzeszDeL
Guest
M
Matt16_18
Guest
The Orthodox Baptism Ceremony
The Blessing of the Oil and Anointing – Once the blessing of the water is complete, the Godparent will offer a small bottle of olive oil over which a prayer for the banishment of evil is read to make it “an anointing of incorruption, a weapon of justice, a renewal of soul and body, a defense against every influence of the Devil and a release from evil to all those who are anointed with it, or partake of it.” Some of this oil is then poured crosswise three times on the water in the font in order to render the consecration of the water complete. The child (now naked) will be anointed with the blessed oil on the forehead, nose, ears, mouth, chest, legs, feet, hands and back.
The Blessing of the Oil and Anointing – Once the blessing of the water is complete, the Godparent will offer a small bottle of olive oil over which a prayer for the banishment of evil is read to make it “an anointing of incorruption, a weapon of justice, a renewal of soul and body, a defense against every influence of the Devil and a release from evil to all those who are anointed with it, or partake of it.” Some of this oil is then poured crosswise three times on the water in the font in order to render the consecration of the water complete. The child (now naked) will be anointed with the blessed oil on the forehead, nose, ears, mouth, chest, legs, feet, hands and back.
M
Myhrr
Guest
M
Myhrr
Guest
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 **
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 **
G
GAssisi
Guest
Dear Myrrh:
How does the following (which you quoted/ wrote) differ from the “Orthodox” understanding?
How does the following (which you quoted/ wrote) differ from the “Orthodox” understanding?
- You are required to believe as infallible dogma that the first man Adam transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise and immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted and that he incurred through that offence the wrath and indignation of God and consequently death with which God had previously threatened him, and together with death, captivity under the power of the devil, and the entire Adam through that offence was changed in body and soul for the worse. Any who do not confess to the above are under RCC anathema.
Greg
R
RBushlow
Guest
Wit reference to Substitutionary atonement
Fr Ambrose:
Please forgive my ignorance, I don’t understand the disagreement heree. What was the “general view of the early church”, and why, then, did Jesus have to suffer and die if not to atone for our sins.
Thank you for your patience.
Fr Ambrose:
Father,
Please forgive my ignorance, I don’t understand the disagreement heree. What was the “general view of the early church”, and why, then, did Jesus have to suffer and die if not to atone for our sins.
Thank you for your patience.
M
Myhrr
Guest
A fuller version of the Orthodox Baptism is here:
stspp.org/docs/baptism.htm
**Prayer for Blessing of the Water. **
GREAT ART THOU, O Lord, and marvelous are Thy works, and there is no word which is sufficient to hymn Thy wonders *(thrice). *
For Thou, of Thine own good will, hast brought into being all things which before were not, and by Thy might, Thou upholdsest creation, and by Thy providence Thou orderest the world. When Thou didst join together the universe out of four elements, Thou didst crown the circle of the year with four seasons. Before Thee tremble all the Powers endowed with intelligence. The sun sings unto Thee. The moon glorifies Thee. The stars meet together before Thy presence. The light obeys Thee. The deeps tremble before Thee. The springs of water are subject unto Thee. Thou hast spread out the heavens like a curtain. Thou hast established the earth upon the waters. Thou hast set round about the sea barriers of sand. Thou hast poured forth the air for breathing. The Angelic Powers serve Thee. The choirs of the Archangels fall down in adoration before Thee. The many-eyed Cherubim and the six-winged Seraphim as they stand around and fly, veil their faces in awe before Thine ineffable glory. etc.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
St. Gregory begins with the distinction between “grace” and "essence: the Divine and Divinizing illumination and grace is not the essence, but the energy of God. The essence of God is absolutely incommunicable. The source and the power of human theosis is not the Divine essence, but the “Grace of God”: the divinizing energy, by participation of which one is divinized, is a divine grace, but in no way the essence of God.
Energies “proceed” from God and manifest His own Being. The term proceed simply suggests distinction, but not a division: the grace of the Spirit is different from the Substance, and yet not separated from it.
St. Gregory Palamas and Theosis
ESSENCE. What a thing is. The internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and not something else. Sometimes essence is said to be the same thing as being, but being merely, affirming that a thing is, without specifying its perfections. Essence is not quite the same as nature, which adds to essence the notion of activity, i.e., nature is the essence in action. Or again essence is substance, but not all essences are substantial because accidents also have an essence. (Etym. Latin essentia, essence, being.)
Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.
Essence is what a thing is - the internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and not something else. St. Gregory makes the distinction between “grace” and "essence: “the Divine and Divinizing illumination and grace is not the essence, but the energy of God.”
Got it. The grace of God is not God. The energy of God is not God.
Energies “proceed” from God and manifest His own Being. The term proceed simply suggests distinction, but not a division: the grace of the Spirit is different from the Substance, and yet not separated from it.
St. Gregory Palamas and Theosis
ESSENCE. What a thing is. The internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and not something else. Sometimes essence is said to be the same thing as being, but being merely, affirming that a thing is, without specifying its perfections. Essence is not quite the same as nature, which adds to essence the notion of activity, i.e., nature is the essence in action. Or again essence is substance, but not all essences are substantial because accidents also have an essence. (Etym. Latin essentia, essence, being.)
Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.
Essence is what a thing is - the internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and not something else. St. Gregory makes the distinction between “grace” and "essence: “the Divine and Divinizing illumination and grace is not the essence, but the energy of God.”
Got it. The grace of God is not God. The energy of God is not God.
- Status