www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West A New Ecclesiology?

While clearly- at least to me- this is the case. How do you understand the development in the Church's position re: usury.

This is a problem for anyone who believes that the Roman Church's Magisterium has infallibly defined this issue.

Deacon Richard .. if you don't mind I would like to take this private as I am really interested in it but don't want to upset anyone.

Specifically I do not see how the Pope's words (Holy Office 1949) can be taken to mean within the church when he seems to me to be setting the context of people not incorperated (batptised and confirmed etc..) ... that has to be the church militant and visible. That is .. NOT members of the church visible.

And the conformity to God's will he is talking about has to be the same as 'abandonment to divine providence' which dozens of saints and theologians of the church have written about and explain very clearly as acting by conscience as God sends to us the events that comprise our lives.

anyways .. tolerate me and I will send you PM on this.

-ray

I think it is a problem for all Christians regardless of reference to infallibility. However, that is a clever framing of the issue.

It seems difficult to me because of the centrality of this issue in Scripture and the way it is all but totally marginalized now, and because of its relationship, perhaps to the immediate eschatological expectations of the earliest Christians to whom the fullness of faith has been given.

Usury is "central" to scripture? I suppose it depends upon one's interpretation of the scriptural texts, and even upon how one defines "usury." That said, I would say that the Sabbath is far more important in the Old Testament than usury, and the Church had no problem setting it aside in favor of the Lord's Day.

This indicates a failure to understand what Zizioulas has actually written, it badly misrepresents his actual words, and is itself an example of "hyperbolic statements." It is necessary to properly read those words of Met. John in the context of the provided (full) quote of the excerpt from his work. For instance, he clearly states and only states concerning his use of the word "revolution"



How then



Dn. Anthony

Zizioulas' opinion is just that his opinion. I do not happen to agree with it, even in the "restricted sense" he indicates based upon the quotation.

The Cappadocian use of the terms "hypostasis" and "ousia" are not revolutions in any way; instead, Basil and the two Gregories merely restricted the use of the terms in order to apply them to an aspect of the Church's faith, and that is hardly what can be described as a "revolution." Etymologically there is no support for the idea that this terminological restriction is a "revolution."

Zizioulas does not say the Cappadocian's use of ousia is other than standard, only that of the use of hypostasis.



Apart from the interpretation as a "revolution" there is support in the basic and classical meaning of the words. One finds link [perseus.tufts.edu] meanings of hypostasis along with ousia and substantia; one finds, however, the separate meanings prosopon, persona (person) link [perseus.tufts.edu]. This supports Zizioulas in that a significant transformation of the term must have occurred to give the meaning hypostasis=persona, rather than


That is, when Zizioulas says "The Cappadocians changed this by dissociating hypostasis from ousia and attaching it to prosopon" he is saying that an accepted ontological term, hypostasis, which was strongly associated with ousia/being/general/one was transformed to strengthen and legitimize the ontologically weak prosopon and thereby give proper ontological weight and content to the association prosopon/persona/particular/many via hypostasis <===> prosopon/persona/particular/many.


Dn. Anthony

Ray, thanks for the clarification. -- Dn. Anthony

(Though I see there is no mention of deacon in your list. ;))

Ray,

Without having the time or energy to respond to your post on Page Three, I will say two little tidbits.

(1) I DID read your entire post, so stop saying that I didn't. I am not lying to you. Please recognize how condescending and rude it is to tell someone "No. I know you didn't," after he tells you that he did read the entire thing. I am not a liar and I take great offense to that.

(2) I never said that "formal membership" in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. Having one's name on the books and being a member of the Church are not synonymous. One can be a member of the Church without being a formal member. So yes, salvation is through the Church and one has to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved.

Alexis

Alexis, you're spot on. But the issue is that people often have different ideas about what consistutes The Catholic Church. I was always taught (and this is the Roman Catholic understanding) that the Catholic Church is made up of all [validly] baptized Christians. Some of these have gone into heresy; as well there has been schism. But we are all called to be one in faith, and one church. (N.B. I have avoided polemic.)

The term The Catholic Church, as well, is more frequently used to mean the Catholic Communion of churches--Roman & Eastern.

Thus, when documents sometime refer to the Catholic Church, definition 1 is sometimes used.

Whoa ??? backup.

Ray said: "And thank you for not judging me." ... which was a compliment.

You replied: "I did read your entire post. And I didn't judge you? At all!" ... which seemed to me that you had taken my compliment as some sort of accusation.

Ray replied: "No. I know you didn't. And I was thanking you for that kindness." .. meaning I knew you had not judged me and I was thanking you for the kindness (of not judgeing me).

Do you see? I was saying that I knew that you did not judge me and I was thanking you for that kindness.

Trust me .. I was complimenting you.

The good Deacon thought I was preaching a new gospel .. you thought I was rude to you .. it is not my best week at the forum.

Peace to you and to your holy church.
-ray

Thanks for clearing it up, Ray. It seemed by your wording that you were refusing to believe I read the entirety of your post, but I can see that we just got our words confused. No harm done, I hope!

Alexis

and ...


Both the above are very good points. It is often hard to tell when the word 'church' is being used in which way. One person will read it one way and another another way.

I have noticed that there is a general convention which (for example) is used most of the time in Vatican II documents and in Papal publications.

A capatial {Church} within a sentence seems to be used to indicate the wider multiple-churches and not just Rome. While a lower case {church} is used to indicate a singular church. Of course when the word begins a sentence one can not trust the capatilzation alone for the meaning.

And a capital {Catholic} seems to consitantly indicated the singular Rome ... while a lower case 'catholic' indicats the wider universal.

But in other documents this convention is not always followed. So it is not consistant across all Vatican documents.

-ray

My heart was heavy for a short time ... but all is sunshine again now .

I know that the way I write is odd. And easily misunderstood. And seems to some as pompus. You see - I love to read classical philosophy and theology and the such and the authors I read are quite old. Very dry dry dry - stuff. Plato, Augustine, Aritotle, and the like. So when I think deep .. it comes out in this very dry and techincal philosophical like way. Believe me .. it has caused me much trouble over the years at this forum. People think I am pontificating by the 'tone' and words I use.

I think that is why I don't get invited to parties (LOL). My idea of a good time is a energetic debate of classical philosophy and mystical theology.

With love..
-ray