What are the similarities and differences?

[Montalban]

Newadvent is a good source, but is not an official source. But even then we’re talking about harm to God’s dignity. The harm is not to God himself, but to his dignity - which is how other humans see God. When we damage other’s perceptions of God, that is not a good thing.

The harm caused by sin (that needs repairing) that you quote above relates to the harm caused to other humans, not to God.

There’s a thread over in general Apologetics that has a half dozen Catholics arguing with me that we can make God change in his state - from being nice to being angry. That we’ve harmed HIM

Thus God can ‘grieve’…
From the Summa Theologica
“In like manner he who is sorry for having offended God, implicitly grieves for his different sins in different ways, according as by them he offended God more or less.”
newadvent.org/summa/5003.htm

The souls in Purgatory suffer because in this world they did not satisfy the justice of God for the injury caused by their forgiven sins. Since they did not satisfy while they were living by good works, they must now pay their debt by their sufferings.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4683
(emphasis added)

Why keep using this terminology if you don’t mean it?

The very use of the word carries a tone related to ‘injury’
satisfaction
(Latin: satis, enough; facere, to make)
(1) In general, reparation made to another to pay a debt or to atone for an injury. Thus, we say that Christ made satisfaction to God for our sins.
(2) In particular, compensation made to God for the debt of temporal punishment. That such a debt of punishment may remain after the sin itself has been forgiven, and that man can make satisfaction for it, is evident from Scripture (2 Kings 12; Jonah 3), and from Christian tradition. The penance given after sacramental confession is intended principally to make satisfaction for the debt of temporal punishment. All supernaturally good works performed by one in the state of grace possess satisfactory value.
catholic-forum.com/Saints/ncd07622.htm

Turning to the Catechism again it says that God needs to be satisfied…
1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of
“satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to
repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a
disciple of Christ.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1494.htm

If no harm has been done to him, then why’s he need to be satisfied?

Here it is again
615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/615.htm

 

[Marc1152]

How is the Catholic church, Episcopal church and Greek Orthodox church different from one another? How are they the same? Thanks for your help.

The Roman Catholic Chruch says to the Episcopal Church to return to the original Ancient Church and clean up some inaccurate idea’s about the history of Christianity and to read the Church Fathers more closely.

The Orthodox Church says to the Roman Catholic Church to return to the original Ancient Church and clean up some inaccurate idea’s about the history of Christianity and to read the Church Fathers more closely.

The Orthodox will say the Protestants have taken away too much and the Roman Catholics have added too much.

 

[ricmat]

There’s a thread over in general Apologetics that has a half dozen Catholics arguing with me that we can make God change in his state - from being nice to being angry. That we’ve harmed HIM

Thus God can ‘grieve’…
From the Summa Theologica
“In like manner he who is sorry for having offended God, implicitly grieves for his different sins in different ways, according as by them he offended God more or less.”
newadvent.org/summa/5003.htm

The souls in Purgatory suffer because in this world they did not satisfy the justice of God for the injury caused by their forgiven sins. Since they did not satisfy while they were living by good works, they must now pay their debt by their sufferings.
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4683
(emphasis added)

Why keep using this terminology if you don’t mean it?

The very use of the word carries a tone related to ‘injury’
satisfaction
(Latin: satis, enough; facere, to make)
(1) In general, reparation made to another to pay a debt or to atone for an injury. Thus, we say that Christ made satisfaction to God for our sins.
(2) In particular, compensation made to God for the debt of temporal punishment. That such a debt of punishment may remain after the sin itself has been forgiven, and that man can make satisfaction for it, is evident from Scripture (2 Kings 12; Jonah 3), and from Christian tradition. The penance given after sacramental confession is intended principally to make satisfaction for the debt of temporal punishment. All supernaturally good works performed by one in the state of grace possess satisfactory value.
catholic-forum.com/Saints/ncd07622.htm

Turning to the Catechism again it says that God needs to be satisfied…
1494 The confessor proposes the performance of certain acts of
“satisfaction” or “penance” to be performed by the penitent in order to
repair the harm caused by sin and to re-establish habits befitting a
disciple of Christ.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1494.htm

If no harm has been done to him, then why’s he need to be satisfied?

Here it is again
615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”. Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/615.htm

Montalban, because some Catholics think something does not make it the teaching of the Church. And besides, the teaching can get quite dense depending on your degree of investigation. And even then everyone uses simplifications to understand something beyond our understanding.

Saying that God grieves, for example is just one way of saying that what we sometimes do is not in harmony with God’s will.

And the souls in purgatory are there to pay for the injury done to other humans. God is infinitely just, and this justice requires that injustice done to a person - one of his children - will be repaid, one way or the other.

To answer your question, I don’t know why people use the terms that they do. After all, God is a mystery for the most part, and something we don’t even have the proper vocabulary to describe.

You originally said:

There’s a debate going on in general apologetics where wave after wave of Catholic has launched themselves into it by saying God can be injured.

That’s a major difference between them and Orthodox - who actually believe God is all-powerful (and therefore can’t be injured)

Now, certainly you know that Catholic teaching is that God is all-powerful. And finding some Catholics that don’t know it, or who fail to express it using the correct words does not change that teaching. And someone like the OP who is just starting to investigate things is unfortunately likely to take your assertions as fact. And turn to Orthodoxy (or at least such seems to be your intent). But if this conversion is based on a “misconception”, then is it valid?

If you want to start a thread about e.g. “What do you mean by God can be injured” or “Do Catholics think that God is not all powerful” then please, those threads might help clear up the misconceptions that you (and perhaps others) have about Catholicism.

 

[ricmat]

The Roman Catholic Chruch says to the Episcopal Church to return to the original Ancient Church and clean up some inaccurate idea’s about the history of Christianity and to read the Church Fathers more closely.

The Orthodox Church says to the Roman Catholic Church to return to the original Ancient Church and clean up some inaccurate idea’s about the history of Christianity and to read the Church Fathers more closely.

You seem to have spoken for the Catholics regarding what they’d say to the Episcopal Church, but I guess you must have overlooked the other part. So I’ll fill it in for you.

The Catholics would say to the Orthodox Church to return to the original Ancient Church and clean up some inaccurate ideas about the history of Christianity and to read the Church Fathers more closely.

And oh by the way, don’t forget the part about Peter as the rock, and Peter as the shepherd, and Peter having the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, because some Catholics think something does not make it the teaching of the Church.

I agree. But that’s not the sole part of my argument. I’ve cited the Catholic encyclopedia as well. The Catholic Church has the doctrine of ‘satisfaction’ that God requires this for the injuries done.

Saying that God grieves, for example is just one way of saying that what we sometimes do is not in harmony with God’s will.

I wish that it were, but that’s to ignore “Satisfaction”

And the souls in purgatory are there to pay for the injury done to other humans.

Oh, really? Where’d you get that one from?

God is infinitely just, and this justice requires that injustice done to a person - one of his children - will be repaid, one way or the other.

Then that’s the problem. God promises us that he will fogive us

Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

Luke 11:11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[a] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

But under Catholic doctrine, even if you were to genuinely seek forgiveness, you’d still have to spend some time in purgatory - to satisfy God’s * sense of justice*

To answer your question, I don’t know why people use the terms that they do. After all, God is a mystery for the most part, and something we don’t even have the proper vocabulary to describe.

I understand people using such devices in order to explain things. Some people aren’t spiritually mature…
1 Corinthians 3:2
I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

However Catholic language peaks at such poor explanations.

You originally said:

Montalban:

There’s a debate going on in general apologetics where wave after wave of Catholic has launched themselves into it by saying God can be injured.

That’s a major difference between them and Orthodox - who actually believe God is all-powerful (and therefore can’t be injured)

Now, certainly you know that Catholic teaching is that God is all-powerful. And finding some Catholics that don’t know it, or who fail to express it using the correct words does not change that teaching. And someone like the OP who is just starting to investigate things is unfortunately likely to take your assertions as fact. And turn to Orthodoxy (or at least such seems to be your intent). But if this conversion is based on a “misconception”, then is it valid?

Well, you go to that thread then and explain it. I’m done with that because I’ve spend days debating them over this.

However it’s not a ‘misconception’ given that Catholics teach that God needs to be satisfied.

Thomas Aquinas says “Since, then, Christ’s Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations. For the atonement by which one satisfies for self or another is called the price, by which he ransoms himself or someone else from sin and its penalty, according to Daniel 4:24: “Redeem thou thy sins with alms.” Now Christ made satisfaction, not by giving money or anything of the sort, but by bestowing what was of greatest price–Himself–for us. And therefore Christ’s Passion is called our redemption.”
Part 3. Question 48. Article 4
newadvent.org/summa/4048.htm

It’s all rather legalistic. God has been injured, you pay compensation… except Jesus has already paid that great price freeing you from obligations. Satisfaction is a word used in terms of debt. For you God needs to be satisfied… because he’s wanting for something

 

[Montalban]

Newadvent is a good source, but is not an official source. But even then we’re talking about harm to God’s dignity. The harm is not to God himself, but to his dignity - which is how other humans see God. When we damage other’s perceptions of God, that is not a good thing.

Likewise, satisfaction should be proportionate to the offense and injury; but the offense and injury is as great, as the one to whom it is brought against; since therefore God is infinite, the offense and injury to God is infinite.
St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (Doctor of the Church)
Commentary on the Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard
Book III, Distinction XX, Article I, Question III
franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon03422.html
… so he who violates another’s honor does not enough by merely rendering honor again, but must, according to the extent of the injury done, make restoration in some way satisfactory to the person whom he has dishonored. We must also observe that when any one pays what he has unjustly taken away, he ought to give something which could not have been demanded of him, had he not stolen what belonged to another. So then, every one who sins ought to pay back the honor of** which he has robbed God**; and this is the satisfaction which every sinner owes to God.
Anselm
Cur deus homo
Chapter XI
ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CURDEUS.HTM

Other Catholic sites…
hence this sorrow is founded in a sincere love of God, a hatred and a detestation of sin, as being an offence and** injury to God**.
catholicdoors.com/teaching/book1/1-17.htm

Protestants believe it as well…
How when man permitted himself to be conquered by the Devil he did an injury to God for which he is unable to make satisfaction.
shoeleg.yak.net/49

The difference is that Protestants don’t think you have to pay off the debt anymore.

I hope this is enough sources.

Also, in case you go trawling for Orthodox who agree with this, even when a fallible Orthodox saint is alleged to have said…
Nicholas Cabasilas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Cabasilas
““The commission of sin involves injury to God Himself… there is need of virtue great than is found in man to be able to cancel the indictment.”
quoted here
razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/nicholas-cabasilas-on-satisfaction.html
Orthodox reject his words (see reactions)

 

[manualman]

Montalban,

I’m not going to argue details and anthropomorphisms with you. I just have a question that bugs me. I have yet to meet an Eastern Orthodox person live or on the web that radiates joy for his faith morseo than irritation or grievance for some wrong against himself, his people or his beliefs. I gotta tell you that isn’t so good for evangelisation.

I mean, I GET it. I’m of Polish ancestry, so I have an inkling of what it feels like to be history’s doormat. But it doesn’t make me itch for a fight every time I meet someone Russian or German either. I even married a woman of German descent.

Are you guys this contentious among yourselves, or is it just the presense of catholics that makes you so?

 

[ricmat]

Montalban,

I’m not going to argue details and anthropomorphisms with you. I just have a question that bugs me. I have yet to meet an Eastern Orthodox person live or on the web that radiates joy for his faith morseo than irritation or grievance for some wrong against himself, his people or his beliefs. I gotta tell you that isn’t so good for evangelisation.
…
Are you guys this contentious among yourselves, or is it just the presense of catholics that makes you so?

Amen!

And I would add that from my perspective, the Orthodox I’ve seen post here seem to have a combination of inferiority complex and a huge chip on their shoulders. What bugs me the most is that some also seem to believe that insinuation and innuendo are clever ways to draw people away from Catholicism without getting banned from the forum. I will say that Montalban can be reasonable at times (and perhaps I am taking out my frustration on him out of due proportion), but there are others who can’t seem to make any statement about anything without taking a dig at the Catholic Church.

I said quite a while ago on the EC forum that prior to coming to CA, I had absolutely no animosity towards Orthodox, and as a Catholic generally felt quite close to them (although not 100% - which they interpreted as an insult).

So Montalban - I respect Orthodoxy. I respect you. In the heat of battle we sometimes go overboard. But gosh…we’re pretty much on the same team here. Let’s go concentrate on converting some heathens (or whatever the currently politically correct word is.)

 

[Montalban]

Montalban,

I’m not going to argue details and anthropomorphisms with you. I just have a question that bugs me. I have yet to meet an Eastern Orthodox person live or on the web that radiates joy for his faith morseo than irritation or grievance for some wrong against himself, his people or his beliefs. I gotta tell you that isn’t so good for evangelisation.

You mean that when an Orthodox comes to a forum to discuss your faith and points out faults in it, rather than deal with that argument, you just ascribe to him some feeling that he’s angry.

Well done. I’m sure that as far as apologetics go that sort of stance does wonders for evangelisation

 

[Montalban]

Amen!

And you do the same.

I think it’s dishonest. You might think I’m angry but you reduced my argument to basically my opinion and one faulty (according to you) source (the Catholic Encyclopedia).

I present MORE evidence. Rather than deal with that I get projection from you and one other poster.

This is a thread about disccussing aspects; differences (and similarities). I pointed this out from an Orthodox understanding of Catholic doctrine.

Your rebuttal “Oh you’re just all pent up with anger” does wonders for the world of apologetics.

 

[ricmat]

And you do the same.

I think it’s dishonest. You might think I’m angry but you reduced my argument to basically my opinion and one faulty (according to you) source (the Catholic Encyclopedia).

I present MORE evidence. Rather than deal with that I get projection from you and one other poster.

This is a thread about disccussing aspects; differences (and similarities). I pointed this out from an Orthodox understanding of Catholic doctrine.

Your rebuttal “Oh you’re just all pent up with anger” does wonders for the world of apologetics.

Here’s a radical idea for the Orthodox posters. Let the Catholics tell others about Catholicism, and the Orthodox can tell them about Orthodoxy. Let the inquirers make the decision - unless it’s specifically a debate thread Orthodox vs. Catholic on some particular subject.

How many Catholics do you see on CAF saying “Well, here’s what the Orthodox REALLY believe…”? IF there are any, I don’t support them either.

I have no desire to debate. I don’t have the time or energy to correct the mistakes of people who have no interest in the truth. To paraphrase a statement that JP2 made to Cardinal Gagnon - "

“…error makes its way because truth is not taught. We must teach truth, repeat it. It is useless to attack the ones who teach errors because that would never end – their errors are so numerous.

But if somebody asks what Catholics believe, I’ll do my best to answer.

If you want to debate, go to the apologetics forum.

 

[swariffin]

Dear brothers and sisters,

When I read the topic of this thread, I knew it would be a lot of informations threw into this thread, and also heated debates. I thank to my fellow catholics for sharing your knowledges in which I can add them to my small one. I also thank to people such as Mr. Montalban who also shares his view towards catholicism, which also challenge my thinking. If we discuss about theological basis of any doctrine in any religion, all will be based on interpretations of verses in the its relevant “holy bible”. (I mean a bible for christians, Quran for the moslems).

I read a book called “Teologi Sistematika” or Systematical Theology if I put it in english. It was written by a roman catholic priest born in Maastricht, and got his doctorate in University of Leuven, Belgium. If I want to explain the catholic sacred tradition as it is rooted by the bible, I would need to quote the entire book since I am not a biblical scolar who may be intelligent enough to summarize them in several simple sentences to be posted in this thread. But, from the book, I accept that the so-called "sacred tradition is explainable logically and based on biblical sources, although it requires lengthy explanations. Definitely, I agree that discussing that (not arguing/debating) in this forum is not appropriate since the infrastructure of this forum is not enough to handle such lengthy explanations.

But, as I mentioned before in my previous posting, why should we blow out the differences?. Will winning the arguments of the differences among us guarantee any ticket to the Kingdom of God? After that, what should be done? Attempting to win arguments against the moslems, perhaps? and then what? against the Buddhist?. I wish we can realize the point here that arguing/debating one’s belief is fruitless. I myself will not be able to represent the Roman Catholic side for this kind of arguement. But, what the heck, the leader of Roman Catholic church (JP2 and Benedict16) is having warmer and warmer relationship with the Ortodox Patriachs. I wonder why their followers (i.e us and Montalban) should argue to each other?

 

[dolphinlove]

Everyone is entitled to what they want to believe in.

 

[BrewMax]

so do greek orthodox still do penance (I know the still do confession) and the rosary like Catholics?

and so do Episcopalians

 

[BrewMax]

How is the Catholic church, Episcopal church and Greek Orthodox church different from one another? How are they the same? Thanks for your help.

Ever been to an Episcopal Holy Eucharist service in the broad high church form? If you haven’t, it is VERY similar to a Roman Catholic mass. Candles, vestments, incense, the sign of the cross, the Rosary. The bishops and priests couldn’t be told apart from Catholic clergy in appearance. Lots of similarities. My wife and my son are Episcopalians. I have been attending the Episcopal church more often than the Catholic church as of late myself.

 

[Montalban]

Here’s a radical idea for the Orthodox posters. Let the Catholics tell others about Catholicism, and the Orthodox can tell them about Orthodoxy.

Not only are you still giving a non-argument, you’re now going against everyone on these threads - e.g. Chatholics who talk about Islam, Catholics who talk about JWs, etc

How many Catholics do you see on CAF saying “Well, here’s what the Orthodox REALLY believe…”? IF there are any, I don’t support them either.

You don’t go over to the eastern christian threads, obviously.

I have no desire to debate.

I see that.

I don’t have the time or energy to correct the mistakes of people who have no interest in the truth.

Same argument Moslems make here about Christians and the ideas of Islam

 

[Montalban]

Ever been to an Episcopal Holy Eucharist service in the broad high church form? If you haven’t, it is VERY similar to a Roman Catholic mass. Candles, vestments, incense, the sign of the cross, the Rosary. The bishops and priests couldn’t be told apart from Catholic clergy in appearance. Lots of similarities. My wife and my son are Episcopalians. I have been attending the Episcopal church more often than the Catholic church as of late myself.

In Easter 2003 I went to a local Anglican church for easter - turns out it was Low Church.

They were exceptionally friendly. Seeing a new face in the church they let me know that I was welcome to join them in communion.

Conversely when I went to my first Orthodox Service the next week no one told me anything - it was just a guess that I thought I should not take communion - as it turns out, I’d not have been allowed to anyway.

Oh, and the Anglican church had a priest from Africa - a native Kenyan - sort of a missionary in reverse.

 

[swariffin]

Ever been to an Episcopal Holy Eucharist service in the broad high church form? If you haven’t, it is VERY similar to a Roman Catholic mass. Candles, vestments, incense, the sign of the cross, the Rosary. The bishops and priests couldn’t be told apart from Catholic clergy in appearance. Lots of similarities. My wife and my son are Episcopalians. I have been attending the Episcopal church more often than the Catholic church as of late myself.

Dear BrewMax, could you perhaps provide me more information regarding Episcopal church? I am not from the US, so I do not know anything about Episcopal Church. Off course, I do not mean to open any argument. I just want to learn more. I asked the same thing about the Mormon and the Amish community in another thread.

 

[Montalban]

Dear BrewMax, could you perhaps provide me more information regarding Episcopal church? I am not from the US, so I do not know anything about Episcopal Church. Off course, I do not mean to open any argument. I just want to learn more. I asked the same thing about the Mormon and the Amish community in another thread.

This article is easy to read

It came about because the head of the Church of England is the British monarch

 

[ricmat]

Not only are you still giving a non-argument, you’re now going against everyone on these threads - e.g. Chatholics who talk about Islam, Catholics who talk about JWs, etc

You don’t go over to the eastern christian threads, obviously.

I see that.

Same argument Moslems make here about Christians and the ideas of Islam

You’re right. I’m not giving an argument. It’s been explained to you over and over on this thread and others, and you still don’t get it. Like the protestants who insist that Catholics (and Orthodox) worship Mary. They just insist on NOT getting it.

I avoid the Eastern Christianity threads. And as I said, I don’t like Catholics telling everybody what the Orthodox really believe either.

There is a time and place for debates. This thread wasn’t one of them.

You seem to be obsessed with “winning” debates.

You know, of course, that winning a debate does not actually change reality. A poor debater tasked with proving that the world is round could actually lose a debate to a good debater who is tasked with proving that the world is flat. Of course, reality doesn’t change in that case. I don’t need to win any debates, it’s not why I come to CAF.

God bless you Montalban, and those you love, and those who love you as well.