Before we go into this any further, what is it to you Roman Catholics if the Orthodox do not accept things your Church define? Why insist?
No-one insisted anything, you provided a vague accusation with no reference as usual but a mention to read a book. You misrepresented what in fact Trans is in your post above mine and then made no attempt to clarify your accusation.
Its nothing to me that you disagree as an Orthodox member but from a interest view as to “why”.
Its something to me when someone claims 33-years as Catholic, then incorrectly defines and misrepresents a teaching while leaning on the 33-years. And to boot doesn’t support the claim with factual evidence, but some vague claim that the evidence exists. That does nothing to resolve the “why” that “does” interest me. It makes me wonder what your motivation indeed is here. Which I believe is what Cav mentioned earlier. That’s all well and fine, but not at the cost of hurry up you betcha posts not rooted in factual reality.
The Doctrines have continued to develop in the East. Palamas is a perfect example. There is no need to claim doctrine doesn’t develop because its a fact it does as we though Grace, man continues to understand mystery revealed in public revelation. The fact that public revelation doesn’t change has no bearing on mans ability to fully grasp the mysteries of the Church and continue to elaborate on their understanding. Which indeed is what occurred with Palamas, All this indicates is what we already know, Grace precedes knowledge.
The idea the Greek philosophy, and pagan is addressed, or in a word used, is no mystery in the Church. Before the First Council this was prevelant and can be read in just about every teaching school in Christianity. Namely Antioch and Alexandria. Creation from nothing became a point of contention and so forth. If the pagans where wrong, they were simply wrong. If they were right, so too they were right. The fact that these two histories ran parallel is indeed a reality. Why should it be ignored or used as some critique of the Latin Church and not the EO Greek? What’s the difference?
There is no neglecting the first 380 years of the Church under the pretense that the past philosophical arguments didn’t play a role. This is well documented with Origen in “The Fundamental Doctrines” and many others. In particular with the understanding and discernment of the Soul in his teaching, and as with many, and as mentioned with creation. This comes of issue with many in a effort to communicate and come to terms with different understanding. This history is your history, there is no getting around it. I don’t see it as tool to create division under the pretense you are not a very real part of that history, that same history.
Many of the early church father’s were in fact pagans before they converted. This is no different than today in communication with mankind. I believe we do a injustice to the schools of Antioch and Alexandria on that path. I see brilliance in both with a well laid out understanding. The fact that “today” we now understand issues more clearer than then in certain case’s, only serves to indicate what’s mentioned above, by Grace we do come to a better understanding of mystery. .
And oddly enough Trans comes from the Greek Fathers of the Church and is translated into Latin.
“its antiquity [Trans] goes back to the early Greek Fathers of the Church who used the word meta-ousiosis. Literally, this means change of one ousia or being—that of bread and wine—into another ousia or being, that of Christ’s living body and blood.” Fr Hardin
LOL…
