Posted on 11/21/2005 11:58:28 AM PST by NYer
Interesting read on Augustine here:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8153.asp
You're quote from Romans is hardly explicit to indicate the concept of inherited sin as opposed to inherited will to rebel against God (sin). The Orthodox church reject the doctrine of original sin and the filioque of Saint Augustine. The Bishop of Rome holds to this doctrine.
So how, in practice, is this achieved? Waving magic wands? The reality on the ground (rather than esoteric theological speculations) is that men disagree on issues. Even men who believe they are guided by the Spirit. Consider EVEN ONE heresy. Without one man acting as the official "referee", Church leadership by committee doesn't work and was NOT the sole practice of the Church. All one has to do is read the history of how the Eastern Bishops treated the Pope. The fact of the matter remains that if a bishop IS teaching false teaching, how does another "equal" remove him? Common sense DICTATES that one man HAS this power. Otherwise, how is the heretical bishop removed?
In practice, local bishops with total control doesn't work. And finally, this is not the definition of the "CATHOLIC" - UNIVERSAL Church. We are not a series of local churches united in name alone. Christ knew that sinful men, including bishops, would never totally agree. Thus, the theoretical idea of local bishops in total union with other bishops WITHOUT a higher human authority is a dream. It has never happened in Christian history. Even in the East, there are different ranks of "bishops" who have authority over other "bishops", an attempt to duplicate the role of Peter.
Regards
I am not sure I understand your distinction between "inherited sin" vs. "inherited will to sin" If we are in Adam, we inherit his sin, just as we are in the Second Adam, we inherit His Justice. Or are you saying that we only inherit Christ's will to be follow Him?
What is the filioque of St. Augustine?
regards
I have posted 3 official orthodox responses on the notion of primacyy, each speaks at length as to how the orthodox view of primacy is implimented.
You should read them because they are part of what led to the schism. Augustine was the author of the filioque which is what was added to the Roman creed.
The Orthodox reject the view of the original sin by Augustine also, and thus have no need to patch around the Virgin Mary to sew together a hole in the doctrine.
The answers to both your questions, whether you like the answers or not, are in the documents I've posted and linked to. If you are interested to know what doctrine issues separate the churches and which actions of the churches separate one another and thus gain perspective on the nature of discussions between Metropolitan Kirill and Cardinal Kasper you must understand the different position of the Orthodox church on these issues, instead you're throwing out straw men, and proclaiming the pope is always right.
This is another grave reason the is not unity; because of the Catholic notion of Ex Cathedra the Catholic church refuses to admit it could be wrong on any of the doctrines which are disputed.
That mentality (heretical to boot) makes meetings little more than an oppurtunity to say "We're right, you're wrong, but we'd really like it if you admitted we're right".
Superb exposition of the Orthodox position today.
Thanks, though it hasn't left me feeling much better about a potential reversal to the schism.
If you are interested to know what doctrine issues separate the churches and which actions of the churches separate one another and thus gain perspective on the nature of discussions between Metropolitan Kirill and Cardinal Kasper you must understand the different position of the Orthodox church on these issues, instead you're throwing out straw men, and proclaiming the pope is always right.
So rather than come out and summarize, I am supposed to wade through thousands and thousands of words taken from the Orthodox point of view on what Catholics believe? I suppose if you bury me with details and links, I will be compelled to believe what you do? I already know what the Church teaches. I don't need the Orthodox's view on Catholicism to tell me (wrongly) what they teach. It is not what you claim, for example, that the Pope is "always right". This line of polemics is outdated and ignorant. Leading me to sources that claim this is the Catholic Church's teachings doesn't lead me to think that your posts will "enlighten me" on the TRUE Orthodox position. Thus, I still will insist on you getting rid of the straw man.
Regarding ex Cathedra. Again, you don't know the Catholic position. It is extremely limited. It has been used TWICE in 150 years. Note this is called an EXTRAORDINARY teaching of the Church. The ORDINARY teachings of the Church are ALSO considered infallible - or will you now say that the Orthodox do not believe that Councils are infallible - which, by the way, was not "defined" at a council.
The Orthodox reject the view of the original sin by Augustine also, and thus have no need to patch around the Virgin Mary to sew together a hole in the doctrine.
The reasons given by you are not convincing. I am to believe that because Mary was declared immaculate by the Church, she must not be fully human? If the Orthodox take that stance, then I suppose they are declaring that Christ, TOO is not fully human, since HE was born immaculate as well. The Church Fathers of 200 AD and before clearly believe that Mary was not born into sin. She is the Second Eve. The First Eve was ALSO not born into sin... So if you disagree that Mary was born without sin, you are going against the Church's teachings for nearly 2000 years. And WE are heretics?
By claiming that the Catholic Church is heretical is to say that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church built on the foundation of Peter. What more can I say about such talk? All we can do is hope that the good Metropolitan Kirill has a better understanding of Church history than you. All it takes to prove Rome's point of view is to look at the writings of the Church Fathers. THEY seemed to believe that the Pope had primacy over other bishops.
What I find interesting about the Orthodox Church is that they currently find Ecumenical Councils as constitutive of ultimate authority - yet the East has never convoked one nor can they. If the universal church is conciliar in structure, then the Eastern Orthodox do not have either a "true church constitution or a regular church government" because they CANNOT summon an ecumenical council (Soloviev, The Russian Church and the Papacy, pg 19). I find this a contradiction. Be careful who you call a heretic.
Regards
Firstly I am not a writer of Orthodox Official materials. Anything I might write would be irrelevant.
That is why I have posted numerous OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS FROM OFFICIAL ORTHODOX SOURCES.
Second I already posted you three such articles on Augustine! (You may recall refusing to read one!)
Here's one from the vatican read the footnotes!
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm
Here's a slew more!
http://aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque
"In the West, St. Augustine of Hippo taught that the Spirit came from the Father and the Son, though subordinate to neither. His theology was dominant in the West until the Middle Ages, including his theology of the Trinity. Other Latin fathers also spoke of the Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son. While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire."
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Augustine_of_Hippo
Despite these acclamations, most of his works were not translated into Greek until the 13th century (?) and some Orthodox Christians identify errors in his theology—especially those in his Triadology which gave rise to the Filioque addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed—and regard him as being one of the major factors in the Great Schism between the Church in the East and in the West. Thus, there are those among the Orthodox who regard Augustine as a heretic, although there has never been any conciliar condemnation of either him or his writings.
Look, if Paul actually did preach against the Torah, he would be in disagreement with our Lord, who said:
Do not think that I have come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Torah until all is fulfilled. Therefore whoever shall break one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them , the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. (Mt. 5:17-19)Therefore, if you think that they were actually in disagreement, great. You follow Paul; I'll follow Jesus.
But they weren't. Paul's argument was that we were no longer under the Law in the sense of being judged by it, since we are saved by God's grace as revealed in Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus the Christ, received by trusting in Him (Eph. 2:8-9). Yeshua said the same thing: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes on Him who sent Me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life" (Jn. 5:24).
However, it stretches credulity to suppose that Sha'ul (Paul), who remained a Pharisee to the end of his days (Ac. 23:6), who himself took a Nazrite oath in order to prove that he still observed and taught Torah and who saw nothing wrong with offering sacrifices in the Temple (Ac. 21:20ff), and who told others to imitate him as he imitated the Messiah (1 Cor. 11:1), would ever say that the Torah was done away with. On the contrary:
For not the hearers of the Torah are just before God, but the doers of the Torah shall be justified. (Rom. 2:13)Sha’ul was never opposed to the Torah, nor to keeping it. What he was opposed to was the misuse of the Torah, in Torah-keeping as an end unto itself, as if one could keep God’s Law well enough to earn the salvation that God has freely offered by His grace.Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the Torah, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the Torah? (Rom. 2:26-27)
Do we then make void the Torah through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish (i.e., uphold) the Torah. (Rom. 3:1)
Therefore the Torah is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Rom. 7:12)
For we know that the Torah is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. (Ro 7:14)
For I delight in the Torah of God according to the inward man. (Rom. 7:22)
For Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the Torah for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Rom. 10:4)
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Cor. 7:19)
Therefore the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. (Gal. 3:24)
But we know that the Torah is good if one uses it lawfully . . . (1 Ti. 1:8)
All Scripture (including the Torah) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Ti. 3:16-17)
Now, it is true that the early believers didn't require Gentiles to become circumcised, which would have put them not simply under the Torah, but also under those parts of the Torah which only circumcised Jews were required to keep (e.g., kosher), as well as under the "Oral Torah," the traditions of the Jews that eventually formed the basis of the Talmud. They also preached that since the Jews, who knew what God's requirements were and had been shown such a great grace in receiving God's forgiveness in the Messiah, should likewise show grace to those who had not known God's commands but who had also been saved by faith in the Messiah instead of marginalizing those who weren't "Jewish enough."
But the Apostles themselves kept the Torah, and based all their teachings on it.
They certainly didn't reject the Torah to replace it with another "Law" of their own making. They didn't move the Sabbath to Sunday, they didn't pray to saints, they kept all the Feastdays of the Lord which God Himself gave at Sinai. All that came later, after the failed 70 AD and 135 AD rebellions which made Jews persona non grata in the Empire, and built up even more rapidly when the tables turned and the pagans were forced into the Church, bringing many of their old traditions with them: Saturnalia, which became Christmas; Easter, which replaced Passover; praying in the direction of the rising sun, an overemphasis of the idea of the Mother of God, etc.
So long as Rome continues to teach people to disobey even the least of the commandments of the Torah, it is not teaching the doctrine or traditions of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
To be fair, most Protestant denominations are in the same boat--but they don't make the claim that they are the sole guardians of the supposed traditions of the Apostles.
Paul did all as you describe because at that time, Christianity was a sect of Judaism. The Apostles continued to worship in the synagogue. It was only after the fall of Jerusalem where the Jews felt it necessary to come together and claim the Christians as heretics in a forceful manner. Thus, it is not unusual to find Peter or Paul at the synagogue worshiping. BUT, they also continued to break the bread. There is a transition period that I see here.
Also, Paul calls the Law a divine teacher. He uses the example of the master's slave who watches over the master's son and ensuring he is taught. But once the child is taught, the slave is no longer above the child. Sorry, I don't have time to look up the verses I am thinking about - it is time to plan T-Day and all of that.
Also, don't confuse the "torah" with the "law". They are not necessarily the same thing. Sometimes, Torah applies to ALL the traditions passed down, both oral and written, and other times, it refers to the Decalogue. I highly doubt that Paul refers positively to the traditions of hand-washing as important to being a Christian.
Sha’ul was never opposed to the Torah, nor to keeping it. What he was opposed to was the misuse of the Torah, in Torah-keeping as an end unto itself, as if one could keep God’s Law well enough to earn the salvation that God has freely offered by His grace.
I agree.
They didn't move the Sabbath to Sunday, they didn't pray to saints, they kept all the Feastdays of the Lord which God Himself gave at Sinai. All that came later, after the failed 70 AD and 135 AD
I don't find any support for that claim. When refering to these practices, the later Church Fathers consider these practices as "from the Apostles". Perhaps this is not meant literal - but there is ultimately no proof that the third generation made up all of that. That is pure speculation based on an argument from absence within the Scriputures. Note that the Scriptures are not the totality of Christian revelation. This was NOT believed by ANYONE up until Luther.
So long as Rome continues to teach people to disobey even the least of the commandments of the Torah, it is not teaching the doctrine or traditions of Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
Rome teaches that hand-washing ceremonies are not important or necessary for Christians for the purpose of salvation. As an ethnical custom, if one is Jewish, so be it. But we are free of such Laws. They do not save. Thus, we are not required to do them. Since the Church has the power to bind and loose, the argument falls on deaf ears. The Church in Acts 15 already began to "loosen" those dietary rules of the "Torah". The Apostles...
They realized that we are not bound to the Laws of the Torah, but to the Law of Christ. Some of the Law of Christ matches the Torah (such as loving thy neighbor and loving God), but we don't follow "love thy neighbor" because it is in the Torah, but because CHRIST gave us this Law. Christ FULFILLS the Law, not abrogates it.
Regards
Augustine's teaching on the Trinity is in line with the teachings of the Church. Namely, that the Father and the Son's relationship bring about the Third Person, the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son. There is ONE divine principle within the Godhead. That was initially the issue with the Orthodox disagreement with the Filioque. The Orthodox felt that the West believed that there were two divine principles moving within the Godhead. There isn't. BUT, realize that "the Father and the Son" is more accurate then just "the Father" because the Spirit doesn't proceed ONLY from the Father. The Son MUST be involved in this procession. While "And" is not the best word, it is NOT heretical, but it explains that BOTH persons are involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit, both within and without the Divine Godhead. Christ AND the Father send the Spirit to the Church as well. Whatever one does, the other is doing as well.
What the West says in the Nicean Creed is NOT heresy. It is a misunderstanding of terminology between us and the East. But if you can get past the name-calling and huffing and puffing that we left the Church and are heretics, you will see that we don't believe in TWO divine principles within the Godhead, just as the Coptics have now said they were misunderstood in the useage of words.
On the subject of heresy. Be aware that heresy is finally official when the Bishop of Rome says it is heresy. Don't believe me? Consult the history and writings on such matters. Rather than making assertions, I will let the Church Fathers speak for themselves. If two opposing factions call each other heretics, who decides whom is correct and who is heretical? The decision for such matters was refered to Rome, not Constantinople, not Alexandria, not Antioch, not Jerusalem. Over and over, bishops write to ROME. Even Bishops in Alexandria. Interesting. WHY? History doesn't beat around the bush. All one must do is read the Development of Doctrine and how something becomes called a heresy. It was always ASSUMED that Rome was the ultimate guardian of the faith. Ultimately, bishops would complain about heretics directly to Rome. Consider reading the Great Ecumenical Father, Saint John Chrysostom, or perhaps, St. Athanasius. Maximus the Confessor. When faced with a great heresy, these men turned to Rome. This cannot be denied. The issue for you is "WHY"? If he was merely an equal, why would heretics even CARE about Rome's decision? Think about it. Even the heretics KNEW that Rome's decision was final. There are numerous letters available written to the Pope from heretics trying to get their viewpoint declared as orthodox. When declared heretics, it was the POPE who forgave the heretic WHEN the man recanted.
On this subject, one must ALSO be aware that just because there is a disagreement in theology doesn't make something "heretical". You will have to show that something was "believed by everyone, for all time, in all places" and then refuted. This is not the case on original sin. The East and West didn't discuss the nuances of disagreements - thus, one would be hard pressed to say that there WAS an "official" DOCTRINE of what original sin was. Just because the East comes to believe that original sin is one thing doesn't make it true for the entire Church. The universal Church's determinations on the matter are first made at the 2nd Council of Orange, and then at Trent - in reference to Pelagius and the Protestants. WE hadn't discussed our disagreements - so how could either one be called "heretics" on the matter? This is how theology is fleshed out - bishops come together to determine what exactly the people believe. Was this done regarding Original Sin BEFORE the Schism? Not to the degree we are discussing. Thus, it isn't correct to call Catholics heretics over this matter.
While familiar in the West, this way of speaking was virtually unknown in the Greek-speaking, Eastern Roman Empire."
This is an example of the self-important, pompous, and arrogant attitude of claiming one's opinion over and above another's opinion without exploring the other's point of view. Yes, that's fine that it was "virtually unknown" in the East. And the West? Frankly, I didn't realize that the Greeks were the center of docrinal determination. What goes on in Constantinople is how it will be done throughout the universal church? Ridiculous.
There are a number of things that the West did and the East had "not heard of it" and vice versus. SO WHAT??? That's the point of getting together to flesh out what the UNIVERSAL CHURCH believes, not the Church of Constantinople. What arrogance. When was the Church of Constantinople ever determined to be the center of the Catholic Church - the ultimate authority for determining proper doctrine? Not the first millenium, I will assure you of that. Look at the major heresies of the Church - they come from the Emperor and his court. St. John Crysostom, Athanasius, Maximus, Flavian, and so forth. All orthodox bishops who were either banned, exiled or killed by the Emperor and his flunky bishops. We are to listen to them for doctrinal purity??? They tried to slip that in at Chalcedon - the Pope saw it and promptly removed it. The Greeks didn't like that. But it was never questioned, "Leo, how dare you do that. Who are you?". No. Rome had spoken, the case was closed. Rather than calling people heretical based on YOUR opinion, have you considered exploring the ENTIRE CHURCH'S opinion on the matter? Have you considered that in the West (yes, we were part of the Church then...) we DID believe just that about original sin? One can only pray that the Orthodox who are seeking to come to a reunion with Rome will have a more open idea of what the Church "believes", rather than thinking that their opinions ONLY represent the will and faith of the Church. I leave you with that thought.
Regards
What oh what will Catholics do when on of those homosexuals they've allowed in acends to the the papacy and declares homosexuality ex cathedra the status quo for priests?
I'll tell you what they'll do, they'll go along with it the same way they've bought into every heresy the pope has been selling for a thousand years.
I humbly submit that I am not as educated as you believe. First, I wasn't aware of the nuances of Augustine's teaching not being in line with the East-West understanding of ONE principle. I was under the assumption that he was without reading "on the Trinity". I AM aware, however, of the confusion throughout the period - for example, the DEFINITION of hypostasis and nature (essence) often had interchangeable meanings between different Fathers.
Add to that the fact that the Latins agree that the Creed without the filioque is normative and it is that which should be used for translations and more importantly catechesis, and using the term heresy becomes destructive. On the other hand, continuing attempts by Latins to justify the use of the filioque, rather than simply to let it die off as an ill conceived theologumenon, might well make it necessary to call a spade a spade.
Kind sir, I am not justifying the Filioque. Have I not suggested that the Creed would more accurately reflect our theology by changing "And" to "through"? I have mentioned this on numerous occasions. I will repeat again that the Filioque is a misunderstanding of the Latin position.
On the subject of heresy. Be aware that heresy is finally official when the Bishop of Rome says it is heresy.
I didn't do very well with that one. What I meant to imply or the meaning I was trying to get across was that heresy is not declared in opposition to what the Pope lays down as normative. Of course, this discounts private opinion or such. But when speaking in his official capacity, I see the Bishop of Rome as the referee who was consulted throughout Christian history during the first millenium. You are absolutely correct that Bishops can and do declare people within their diocese as heretics. However, if a "heretic" takes umbrage with the title, doesn't he write to Rome? That is what I had meant, and I apologize for implying that ONLY the Bishop of Rome could declare a person a heretic. That was not my intention, and history flatly rejects that idea.
After the failed Council of Florence and the still born reunion, the bishops and Patriarchs of the East declared the Pope and those in communion with him to be heretics:
Which means little considering that the Church had never considered that a Patriarch could declare the Bishop of Rome as a heretic. There is no precedent. On the other hand, the Bishop of Rome HAS removed Bishops at Constantinople, such as immediately following the Robber Council. Leo ALSO declared the "Council" as null and void. Did any other bishop have this authority given by the Church faithful? Where is the Church precedent for the actions you mention at the Council of Florence??? Where is your criticism of the East's presumption to take up new powers that it never had to begin with?
+Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin is not at all in accord with the consensus patrum
Are you ready to cite Western Bishops, or do only Eastern Bishops count to determine the "consensus patrum"? Here is what St. Augustine says to the Pelagian Bishop Julian of Eclanum: "It is not I who have invented original sin, which the Catholic Faith holds from of old, but thou, who denies it, thou art without doubt a new heretic" (De nupt, et concup. II 12, 25). St. Augustine, in his Contra Julianum adduces a formal proof from Tradition, in which he quotes St Ireneaus, St Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St Hilary, St Ambrose, Innocent I, St Gregory of Nazianus, St. John Crysostom, St Basil, and St Jerome as witnesses to the Catholic teachings. Many assertions of the Greek Fathers who insist on personal responsibility for sin and appear entirely to prescind from original sin, are to be understood as being in opposition to Gnostic-Manichaean dualism and to Origenistic pre-existentianism. St Augustine defended the teaching of St John Crysostom against its misinterpretation by the Pelagians.
Irrefutable proof of the conviction of the primitive Church as to the reality of original sin is the old Christian practice of the baptism of children "...for the remission of sin" (St. Cyprian), not "merely" to be welcomed as a Child of God.
As to the specifics, there are unresolved issues that I am aware of. For example, there is a controversy as to whether the wounding of nature consists exclusively in the loss of the preternatural gifts, or whether human nature in addition is intrinsically weakened in an accidental manner. Thus, the doctrine is NOT completely settled.
After all, on this subject +Augustine the infallible Father was explicated by +Aquinas, the infallible Father who instructed that his works be burned because they were so much worthless straw...but Rome knew better didn't it.
Hmm. Let's change "Augustine" and "Aquinas" to "Greek Fathers", then it will be considered infallible by the Orthodox... Trent was an Ecumenical Council, called just as Chalcedon was called. If the East continues to believe that such Councils are infallible, then yes, the teaching on Original Sin is infallible. Perhaps in the course of discussion, again, the East can interject their disapproval of the parts they disagree with and the West will then re-work the dogma to reflect this. But until then, the definitions of Trent represent our correct beliefs. Infallible definitions from an Ecumenical Council are not heretical, unless you are claiming that the Spirit no longer guides the Church in a Council, as in Acts 15.
And so you bequeathed to the West the seeds of Calvinism
Quite unfair. How soon some forget that I have defended both the West and East against the very same Calvinists who are certain innovators of beliefs NEVER held by either side.
The Council of orange was a council of the universal Church? Even Rome doesn't claim that Council was ecumenical. And Trent? What presumption!
If I am not mistaken, the Council of Orange 2 WAS declared an Ecumenical council. But perhaps I am mistaken. Correct me if I am wrong. As to Trent, what can I say? It was a properly convened Council representative of the Catholic Church (what's left of it at the time). Did the Catholic Church stop convening Councils when the Coptics left? When the Armenians left? What makes you think that Councils can no longer be convened because Constantinople left? What I find ironic is all of the above Churches only follow the Councils they were present at as having ANY authority. As if THEY were the ultimate factor behind the Church's power to convene councils. And Rome is arrogant? Be careful of the wood in your own eye, brother, before you start telling us we are heretical and arrogant.
I am trying not to be presumptuous. Forgive me if I appear to be. I have the utmost respect for the devout Orthodox. As such, seeing that my words are offensive to you, I must respectably bow out from this conversation. I would rather be thought wrong but charitable, then correct and uncharitable. As I began this letter, I end it humbly begging your forgiveness - clearly, I am not as educated as you believe, especially in the Church Fathers. But I stand by my Church's infallible decisions. I hope that those more educated then I am can come together and settle the matters before us. I'll leave it at that.
Brother in Christ
I'll tell you what they'll do, they'll go along with it the same way they've bought into every heresy the pope has been selling for a thousand years.
The above comment does not need any reply. I'll leave you in your hatred and lack of knowledge of the Catholic Faith.
Take care and God bless
I do not hate Catholics. I hate heresey and worry of misguidance.
Loyalty to bishops above what is right caused the situation of homosexuality in America to go far beyond what it needed to.
Loyalty to men ends in failure (the soviets were loyal to men to the bitter end).
Benedict is a perfect orthodox Catholic. But as you well know forces were rallying for a liberal Catholic, and in the Catholic church God doesn't vote, a group of men do. The holy spirit is not voted into office.
I fear gravely the day those forces who want a liberal watered down Vatican III win. It will be as much a blow to the apostolic church as the Catholic church.
There were several things that I disagreed with on this most recent post. However, as I said before, I prefer to be thought of as wrong and gracious. Knowledge puffs up but love builds up... Yes, I needed to apologize; unfortunately, being called a heretic does not sit well with me, so please understand. And the other gentleman that I have been posting with didn't make matters any easier when he kept getting Catholic teachings wrong - and calling us heretics based on that straw man. But I regress.
Yes, we should consider what we say to each other. It is clear that we don't fully understand each other's point of view. I hope this is not a microcosm of what will happen in the upcoming discussions. I am hopeful progress will be made, but I fear it will take a number of years for this to occur. What MUST stop is the idea that EITHER Church is heretical. THAT will not do. If we consider the Orthodox heretical, we are wasting our time - and vice versus. The catholic faith (small 'c') has room for diversity of thought. I do realize that doctrine is often given wide leeway in interpretation. Councils set the boundaries of thought - not necessarily precise and narrow definitions. I believe original sin is one example of diversity of thought. It is apparent that the concept developed independently beginning with Ambrose in the West (even Tertullian can be said to have original sin ideas). But enough of that. By the way, are you sure that Origenism was anathemized, rather than Origen himself?
As I have said before, I appreciate our discussions, as I always learn from them. I have only been in the faith for 5 years now, so I still have lots to learn about the Fathers. It is all quite daunting, and I have tried to look to the Scriptures with a higher priority, until I get a good "handle" on them. I do enjoy reading about the development of doctrine, and how the Church came to believe what it believes. But as to reading individual Fathers, I wouldn't know where to begin...
Again, I hope I did not cause you any anger. I apologize if I sounded defensive. The following comes to mind (I'm better with the Scriptures then the Fathers) "...He (bishops) should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil's punishment" (1 Tim 3:6). "Knowledge puffs up, love builds up" (1 Cor 8:1). This is easier said than done. Paul was a wise man.
Brother in Christ
It seems silly to me to argue with someone who will onyl accept the teachings of the church if they are confirmed ex cathedra.
The Orthodox put their faith in the early church fathers as a group, and their traditions. When we have a question we compare it to their teachings.
The Catholics look to the pope who can either look to early church precedent or the words of the pope.
Would Peter, whom the pope is aledged to have received primacy from, ever say it is tolerable for homosexuals to bless the Eucharist? Would he tolerate the church being used as a tool to molest Children?
Were Peter at the head of the church every American bishop tolerating this behavior in this situation would be excommunicated, as quickly as any other heretics. He would not leave it up to local bishops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.