Reading what Orthodox people (and saints) say about Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter EIF5A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
I can but I hesitate to bring up the question of the filioque or the question concerning whether the Blood was shed for all or for many.
Click to expand...
To be fair, at least they have now corrected the English translation to read “many”. A pity that it remained uncorrected for so long.
 
Cavaradossi said:
To be fair, at least they have now corrected the English translation to read “many”. A pity that it remained uncorrected for so long.
Click to expand...
Corrected? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_multis
Are you suggesting a theological problem here? Is there an definitive Orthodox statement on the theology involved? Has Gregory of Nyssa’s idea of universal salvation been definitively ruled against?
 
dvdjs said:
Corrected? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_multis
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting a theological problem here? Is there an definitive Orthodox statement on the theology involved? Has Gregory of Nyssa’s idea of universal salvation been definitively ruled against?

Apocatastasis was condemned at the fifth ecumenical council. St. Gregory’s doctrine of apocatastasis should be understood as St. Maximus the Confessor understood it, namely as the universal reconciliation of humans with God on the level of nature (that is, the universal reception of ever-being at the resurrection), but not on the level of hypostasis (or in other words, not the reception of well-being).
 
Well heres a link to help along with the confusion.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F01599a.htm&ei=i5uOVPSIJIelNp6bgagE&usg=AFQjCNGC56Pe5TKInVLZktnZJLGNGy-xbQ
which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls.
This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage. It first occurs in his “De animâ et resurrectione” (P.G., XLVI, cols. 100, 101) where, in speaking of the punishment by fire assigned to souls after death, he compares it to the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace, through being separated from the dross with which it is alloyed.
Click to expand...
The doctrine of the apokatastasis is not, indeed, peculiar to St. Gregory of Nyssa, but is taken from Origen, who seems at times reluctant to decide concerning the question of the eternity of punishment.
Click to expand...
Which btw was promoted by the EO.

I see you guys are doing better with Purification.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPurgatory&ei=3J-OVJCEHsuYgwTC2IPQCA&usg=AFQjCNGShXXf-_rlOafST2nkDECz0SHk8Q

Another conversation which drastically changed in a couple years.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrayer_for_the_dead&ei=3J-OVJCEHsuYgwTC2IPQCA&usg=AFQjCNEwtRd4p6J9NzwoquIUWjL7cbs0Bg

And lets not forget praying for those in hell. There’s real merit to that after they are judged by God.
“…who also on this all-perfect and saving feast, art graciously pleased to accept propitiatory prayers for those who are imprisoned in Hell, promising unto us and unto those held in bondage great hope of release from the vileness that doth hinder us and hinder them… We who are living will bless thee, and will pray, and offer unto thee propitiatory prayers and sacrifices for their souls.”
Click to expand...
And of course we know the dogmatic teaching of the EO, is understood by its liturgical identification. Repetitive on all the threads.

orthodoxeurope.org/page/12/1.aspx

Course the response to all that is wait, wait its Romes fault and they did it too!!!:rolleyes:
 
Cavaradossi said:
Apocatastasis was condemned at the fifth ecumenical council. St. Gregory’s doctrine of apocatastasis should be understood as St. Maximus the Confessor understood it, namely as the universal reconciliation of humans with God on the level of nature (that is, the universal reception of ever-being at the resurrection), but not on the level of hypostasis (or in other words, not the reception of well-being).
Click to expand...
Christs blood was shed for all humans. The debate on the correct translation doesn’t negate that for many can’t refer to a totality. No teachings changed. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, stated:
  • “If we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.”*
However the words at the consecration are meant in a salvific manner of those who accept the merits of Christs blood shed and thus the row for the correct translation as it was later realized that the words referred to salvation, not to redemption. Thus the change in the words to reflect a select group of people. Translation errors are not changes in doctrine as both positions mentioned here are orthodox. It is just that the former was misplaced.
 
For they were not deserted by God so that they deserted God; but they deserted and were deserted…St. Prosper of Aquitaine

Christs blood was shed for all and God willed all to be saved, all do not desire to be saved, unfortunately.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FCOUNCILS%2FORANGE.HTM&ei=ubCOVJTMK8S0ggSguIDgDw&usg=AFQjCNHTZMMbW4asl5R4Aec9MjytewylFA
The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine
Click to expand...
Canon 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?
Click to expand...
 
Tomdstone said:
At Mass today, the priest said that the Blood was shed for many.
Click to expand...
Christs blood was shed for all humans. The debate on the correct translation doesn’t negate that for many can’t refer to a totality. No teachings changed. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, stated:

“If we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.”

However the words at the consecration are meant in a salvific manner of those who accept the merits of Christs blood shed and thus the row for the correct translation as it was later realized that the words referred to salvation, not to redemption. Thus the change in the words to reflect a select group of people. Translation errors are not changes in doctrine as both positions mentioned here are orthodox. It is just that the former was misplaced.
 
Trent elaborated on Orange. Glad to hear you are going to mass Tom.
 
Wandile said:
Christs blood was shed for all humans. The debate on the correct translation doesn’t negate that for many can’t refer to a totality. No teachings changed. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, stated:

“If we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.”

However the words at the consecration are meant in a salvific manner of those who accept the merits of Christs blood shed and thus the row for the correct translation as it was later realized that the words referred to salvation, not to redemption. Thus the change in the words to reflect a select group of people. Translation errors are not changes in doctrine as both positions mentioned here are orthodox. It is just that the former was misplaced.
Click to expand...
It is not a translation error. Pro multis means for many.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Well heres a link to help along with the confusion.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F01599a.htm&ei=i5uOVPSIJIelNp6bgagE&usg=AFQjCNGC56Pe5TKInVLZktnZJLGNGy-xbQ

Which btw was promoted by the EO.

I see you guys are doing better with Purification.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPurgatory&ei=3J-OVJCEHsuYgwTC2IPQCA&usg=AFQjCNGShXXf-_rlOafST2nkDECz0SHk8Q

Another conversation which drastically changed in a couple years.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPrayer_for_the_dead&ei=3J-OVJCEHsuYgwTC2IPQCA&usg=AFQjCNEwtRd4p6J9NzwoquIUWjL7cbs0Bg

And lets not forget praying for those in hell. There’s real merit to that after they are judged by God.

And of course we know the dogmatic teaching of the EO, is understood by its liturgical identification. Repetitive on all the threads.

orthodoxeurope.org/page/12/1.aspx

Course the response to all that is wait, wait its Romes fault and they did it too!!!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Promoted what? And are you making a point about prayers for those in hell?
 
Tomdstone said:
It is not a translation error. Pro multis means for many.
Click to expand...
In this context, the Holy See has decided that in the new translation of the Missal, the words “pro multis” should be translated as they stand, and not presented in the form of an interpretation. In the place of the interpretative explanation “for all”, the simple rendering “for many” must appear. Let me take the opportunity to point out that neither Matthew nor Mark uses the definite article, so it is not “for the many”, but “for many”. If this decision makes a great deal of sense, as I hope it does, in terms of the fundamental relationship between translation and exegesis, I am also aware that it poses an enormous challenge to those with the task of explaining the word of God in the Church, since to the ordinary church-goer it will almost inevitably seem like a rupture at the heart of the sacred. They will ask: did Christ not die for all? Has the Church changed her teaching? Can she do so? May she do so? Are there reactionary forces at work here to destroy the heritage of the Council? We all know from experience of the last fifty years how deeply the alteration of liturgical forms and texts touches people’s souls. How greatly perturbed people will be, then, by a change in the text at such a key moment. This being so, when the decision was made to opt for the translation “many”, in view of the difference between translation and explanation, it was established at the same time that a thorough catechesis would be needed to prepare the way for this translation in the various language regions: the bishops would have to help the priests, and through them the lay faithful, to understand exactly what this is about. Prior catechesis is the essential condition for adoption of the new translation. As far as I am aware, no such catechesis has yet taken place in the German-speaking world. The purpose of my letter is urgently to ask all of you, my dear Brother Bishops, to develop a catechesis of this kind, to discuss it with the priests and to make it available to the lay faithful
Click to expand...
Up to a point, the principle of translating the content rather than the literal meaning of key texts is still justified. Since I constantly have to say liturgical prayers in a variety of languages, though, it strikes me that the different translations sometimes have little in common and that often the common text underlying them can scarcely be detected.
Click to expand...
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Fholy_father%2Fbenedict_xvi%2Fletters%2F2012%2Fdocuments%2Fhf_ben-xvi_let_20120414_zollitsch_en.html&ei=pvCOVJ6SJompNuGrhCg&usg=AFQjCNGgTWj-Zi1odiolqP9bwwZH4oVelg

Same could be said with the “all have sinned” take on things, or the prayer for the demons and those in hell.🙂
 
Seraphim73 said:
Would you like to tell me what the point is? :confused:
Click to expand...
That the Holy Father obviously has the final say on his intended understanding. And though be it as may be that scripture or misinterpretation of liturgy may be a fact. It doesn’t change the first sentence. I thought I was clear. 🙂
 
GaryTaylor said:
That the Holy Father obviously has the final say on his intended understanding. And though be it as may be that scripture or misinterpretation of liturgy may be a fact. It doesn’t change the first sentence. I thought I was clear. 🙂
Click to expand...
No Gary if it was clear to me I wouldn’t ask you to clarify. 😉
 
Tomdstone said:
It is not a translation error. Pro multis means for many.
Click to expand...
I’m not denying that it means for many. I’m saying for all was the error and not really an error but simply an orthodox meaning being placed where it doesn’t belong
 
Wandile said:
I’m not denying that it means for many. I’m saying for all was the error and not really an error but simply an orthodox meaning being placed where it doesn’t belong
Click to expand...
At one point in time the Catholic Church taught that the Blood was shed for many. At another point in time the Catholic Church taught that the Blood was shed for all.
 
Tomdstone said:
At one point in time the Catholic Church taught that the Blood was shed for many. At another point in time the Catholic Church taught that the Blood was shed for all.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness. READ this time…

When the words “for all” were used for the consecration, these referred to the redemptive work of Christ. All humans have been redeemed. That’s why The Catechism of the Council of Trent, stated:
"If we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all…
Click to expand...
However although the teaching was correct, the placing of the teaching was incorrect as the consecration is meant to refer to the salvation of souls, not redemption. Hence the push and change to “for many” . That’s why the catechism of Trent also says :
“… but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.”
Click to expand...
There is no change in teaching here. You are just misunderstanding what happened. It’s a very simple thing…🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top