|
2 members (Hutsul, 1 invisible),
352
guests, and
90
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
side note: how do you do that? Thank you, Kyrie eleison, Manuel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
To those who see "nit picking" I offer that "God is in the details." The feeling of "gotcha" should be overcome by explanation. It may be, however, the proper feeling for those who offer lofty theological concepts, often glibly stated, that are found wanting when scrutinized. Dear ajk, Isn't the traditional subject of that quoted saying a tad different . . .   lol. No. And do not try to put ideas (lofty theological concepts) into someone else words. I do my best to be humble ... Perhaps a disclaimer is in order: My posts are addressed to ALL on the forum for scrutiny and critique. They are not solely addressed to anyone in particular unless that is explicit. And I do not care for such one-on-one exchanges: I find them contrary to the openness of a forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
And do not try to put ideas (lofty theological concepts) into someone else words. I do my best to be humble ... Perhaps a disclaimer is in order: My posts are addressed to ALL on the forum for scrutiny and critique. They are not solely addressed to anyone in particular unless that is explicit. And I do not care for such one-on-one exchanges: I find them contrary to the openness of a forum. ajk, Anyone is always welcome to interject. You responded to statements I made so I engage you in one on one conversation whilst still open to others joining in. Just because you are being engaged one on one does not mean that the conversation is being confined to only those two individuals. Kyrie eeison, Manuel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
But I do not see it, nor does the Catholic Church, as "fiction." You seem to be confusing the theological tradition of one Church, i.e., the Roman Church, with the tradition of the Catholic Church. The Byzantine Church is Catholic too, and its theological tradition has as much weight as the Roman tradition. Problems have arisen because the Roman Church has tried to turn its speculations into dogma (e.g., the Roman view of the original sin, the theory of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that the bishop of Rome has supremacy over all the other bishops, the filioque, etc.), and that has brought about the present division between East and West. How do you identify, what is the designation for, the communion of churches that includes the particular church of Rome?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
I don't believe this question has been addressed fully: If "no one is born guilty or sinful" why are new-born babies baptized? What is the theology -- the faith -- for baptizing? The reason for baptism - infant or adult - is entry into the Church ... I agree with the ecclesiological connection: Outside the Church, no salvation. The question was intended to focus on the innate -- basic or primitive -- soteriology. That is, as noted: For infants, the baptism ... The child would otherwise be outside the church and would live a life without grace until his later baptism. Is this saying, then, that the unbaptized child is without grace?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 15 |
side note: how do you do that? Manuel, Other than cut and paste  , the special character for a section (variously called a 'section symbol', 'section mark', or 'section sign') is produced by use of key combinations; which combination is used depends on the format in which you're typing. The plural by the way ('sections') is §§ Using HTML: Either enter § - followed immediately by a semicolon or enter § Using UBB: Enter § - again followed immediately by a semicolon (I had to not type the semicolon or it would have produced the symbol, rather than show you the code, since UBB is the default here) In Windows: Enter ALT0167 (hold the ALT key while typing the numbers) - whoops, almost forgot, you must type the numbers on the keypad - not the main keyboard. In Mac OS: Enter OPTION 6 (hold down the OPTION key while typing the number) To do it here, other than by cut & paste, you would have to either use the UBB code or else use the HTML code, after selecting "Using HTML" from the 'Markup' drop-down below the reply box (the default is "Using UBB Code"). Many years, Neil
Last edited by Irish Melkite; 10/15/10 12:39 AM. Reason: add whoops
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 288 |
Thank you Neil,
Kyrie eleison,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
Re-reconstructing here for context: So, reconstructing:There is no need for a theory of the "Immaculate Conception" in the East, because no one is born guilty or sinful. "no one is born guilty or sinful" -- but what about from conception? Is everyone also immaculately conceived? Yes. All that has being exists naturally in the divine energy (see St. Gregory Palamas, Capita Physica, no. 78). Except for mortality and its consequences, how does this state differ from that of Adam before the Fall?
QUESTION: In what ways does "this state" differ from that of Adam before the Fall? QUESTION: In what ways does "this state" differ from that of Adam before the Fall? The difference is this: Adam was created immortal but with the potential to fall into mortality, while we are conceived and born mortal but with the potential to have ever-well-being, that is, if we cooperate with the divine energy. As the context indicates, mortality and its consequences -- "Except for mortality and its consequences" -- was explicitly excluded. Not to butt in, but that's simple. Before the fall, Adam and Eve were not subject to death. After the Fall, they and humankind were and still is. I agree. And thank you for "butting in." As the context indicates, mortality and its consequences -- "Except for mortality and its consequences" -- was explicitly excluded. An infant's soul is in the same state that Adam's was, however, the difference you seek is that these souls are born into a world where death reigns. Sin is a result of death's grip. I agree. The difference I seek is not "that these souls are born into a world where death reigns. Sin is a result of death's grip." As I said: As the context indicates, mortality and its consequences -- "Except for mortality and its consequences" -- was explicitly excluded. HOWEVER, The answered to my "QUESTION" and with agreement is: An infant's soul is in the same state that Adam's was,... I agree. It is why Jesus, through death, has conquered death, to redeem this world that was corrupted. ... Through Eve, Adam introduced death. Through the Theotokos, Jesus the new Adam conquered death. Please correct me if I interpret the words incorrectly. "redeem this world that was corrupted" The corruption is: death and all the sins committed after the Fall; the resultant state of alienation of all creation from God; the personal sin of Adam and the personal sin of Eve in eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Genesis 2:17; 3:6 ff. "through death..." That is, Jesus by His death on the Cross, by accepting death in the flesh, and by His subsequent resurrection from the dead... “...has conquered death.” What is the meaning of "death" here -- in that Jesus "conquered death" or in His trampling down death -- in relation to the statement that Jesus has "redeem this world that was corrupted"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
“...has conquered death.” What is the meaning of "death" here -- in that Jesus "conquered death" or in His trampling down death -- in relation to the statement that Jesus has "redeem this world that was corrupted"? If death condemns humanity to sin, and sin condemns humanity to hell (or separation from God, a fundamental corruption of humanity's relationship with him in Eden), then Christ, the New Adam, by giving us a new communion with God and restoring the separation that sin imparts, has conquered the death that brought about this separation (sin) in the first place. As for the difference excluding mortality and its consequences, that goes a bit above my pay grade I would think. The knowledge of good and evil is a tempting response. Although I can also just as easily, or perhaps more easily, see that this knowledge is fundamental to the fallen world (watch a war, or MTV) and unavoidable for an innocent newborn to be exposed to. In Eden it was not, thus the apple. But as I said, I am only speculating.
Last edited by jjp; 10/15/10 11:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
“...has conquered death.” What is the meaning of "death" here -- in that Jesus "conquered death" or in His trampling down death -- in relation to the statement that Jesus has "redeem this world that was corrupted"? If death condemns humanity to sin,... If? Does it or not? ...and sin condemns humanity to hell (or separation from God, a fundamental corruption of humanity's relationship with him in Eden),... There was an issue raised about sin and sins so I need to ask for clarification about "sin condemns humanity to hell." A perspective against the wording and theology of the IC is that there is no singular sin in the sense of an original sin that is common to Mankind. ... then Christ, the New Adam, by giving us a new communion with God and restoring the separation that sin imparts, has conquered the death that brought about this separation (sin) in the first place. That restoration took place at a specific point in time. How does the transformation from the old to new Adam now happen? As for the difference excluding mortality and its consequences, that goes a bit above my pay grade I would think. Not following this? A key issue is that there is or is not an original sin. Everyone agrees that death is transmitted and thus, as a consequence, sins are committed. But is the actual sin of Adam transmitted as sin, original sin, to his descendants, that is, something besides death/mortality? The knowledge of good and evil is a tempting response. To me, saying this already puts the matter on a moral plane, not just the existential aspect of mortality /death. It would seem to me that to say that the "knowledge of good and evil" is transmitted is to begin on a path of reasoning that leads to the concept of original sin. Although I can also just as easily, or perhaps more easily, see that this knowledge is fundamental to the fallen world (watch a war, or MTV) and unavoidable for an innocent newborn to be exposed to. In Eden it was not, thus the apple. But as I said, I am only speculating. Right. The speculation is interesting and appreciated: a knowledge (of good and evil) that is fundamental to the fallen world. Can that be seen as a consequence of death/mortality? ============================================================== Disclaimer to All: I'm not trying to put words in others' mouths. I'm drawing conclusions and speculating and appreciate clarifications and corrections.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 714 Likes: 5 |
If death condemns humanity to sin,... If? Does it or not? It's an if/then statement. [ en.wikipedia.org] You can't splice it like that without completely losing the meaning. I am not trying to be rude so forgive me if I seem that way regardless, but when you excerpt a few words from my sentence and take them out of the context they belong in, meaningful communication becomes problematic, if not impossible. It's a pattern I've already noticed in this conversation. Your questions don't follow logically from my responses, and I assume that I am not doing an adequate job of presenting my ideas. I do hope that somebody else is more capable than I am of explaining the Eastern position to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
If death condemns humanity to sin,... If? Does it or not? It's an if/then statement. [ en.wikipedia.org] You can't splice it like that without completely losing the meaning. The splice was only to emphasize the key words. I believe it is correct that "death condemns humanity to sin." Do you agree, disagree, or don't know? I am not trying to be rude so forgive me if I seem that way regardless, but when you excerpt a few words from my sentence and take them out of the context they belong in, meaningful communication becomes problematic, if not impossible. It's a pattern I've already noticed in this conversation. If anything I was concerned that I was over-quoting and repeating too much of others' post in my responses. I consciously strive to present a proper context. In the future if I quote you I will do so in full. Your questions don't follow logically from my responses, and I assume that I am not doing an adequate job of presenting my ideas. It seems then that our logic differs. Even if not, communicating, especially subtle concepts is difficult (Genesis 11:6-9)-- even with a common language. Pentecost awaits. I do hope that somebody else is more capable than I am of explaining the Eastern position to you. I appreciated your post. A definite problem that you share with some others -- one that hampers addressing the issues themselves -- is that you are "explaining the Eastern position." There are a number of Eastern positions, one of which is mine as an Eastern Catholic. For instance, an Eastern synthesis based solely on Eastern (Greek) Patristics is an interesting and worthwhile endeavor. I find, however, that it is incomplete in that it does not permit itself to be informed by the also-rich theological experience of the West. As such, it comes across to me as theological xenophobia. You raised a very good point about the knowledge of good and evil that should be commented on further (by anyone). ----------------------------- PS I just looked at my previous post and see that I did quote you in full. That's the best anyone can do for context.
Last edited by ajk; 10/15/10 06:44 PM. Reason: PS added
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
To be clear(er), I mean objectively. For instance, a recent, official presentation of the Catholic faith says:. . . That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception . . . The Melkite Patriarch here is not undoing any of the Church's dogmas. He voices a legitimate complaint, and one should not read more into it than what is actually stated. Specifically: However, as a convert to Catholicism I have made a promise to believe and confess all that the [Roman] Catholic Church believes, confesses and proclaims. Therefore, I try to avoid contradicting the teaching of the Popes and Councils of the Catholic Church. But what does the Melkite Church profess about the IC? What is stated here [ mliles.com]? Pius IX's unilateral declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was considered imprudent by Byzantine Catholics.
* Since the Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox do not understand Original Sin in the same way as the Latins, the concept of the Immaculate Conception makes no sense in Eastern theology
* The Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox believe that only an Ecumenical Council can declare dogma. That is quite a sweeping and pompous statement being made as the site notes: the "Melkite Greek Catholic Church Information Center is an unofficial Melkite Greek Catholic Web site and has not been reviewed or approved by any Melkite clergy person." It certainly does not speak for me and other "Byzantine Catholics" and it is pretentious for it to do so: thus, the word hubris [ merriam-webster.com] applies. Does it/this accurately express the position of the Melkite Church?But what do the Melkites profess about the IC? The site of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton [ melkite.org] does not appear to comment. Some would argue that the best profession of faith is not a statement as such in words but the living reality and application. Take for instance the statement made by EGLISE IMMACULEE CONCEPTION HELIOPOLIS, LE CAIRE, EGYPTE [ egliseimmaculee.com]. There it is said: This church is called in Arabic language "Al Azrah al Tahira" (the Virgin the All-Pure) but from the foundation it is known also by the French name of "IMMACULEE CONCEPTION" to honor the dogma of the Immaculate Conception proclaimed by the Pope Pius IX on 8 December 1854. [ egliseimmaculee.com] And just to be clear about what these Melkite "Byzantine Catholics" profess, they have a page THE WAY TO AN ADULT FAITH THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION [ egliseimmaculee.com] which begins: "We declare , pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful". ("Ineffabilis Deus", Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 1854)...
With the term "Immaculate Conception”, however, we mean that the conception of Mary in the womb of Saint Anne was free from all stain of original sin, the sin of Adam and Eve, which affected all other human beings. While other human creatures enter this world in a state of original sin, and have to be purified by Baptism, the Virgin Mary entered this world in a state of original sanctity...
This unique and miraculous event happened in the first moment of the Blessed Mary's conception, when her soul was created and infused into her body. From the first moment of Mary's animation in Saint Anne's womb, Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin, and sanctifying grace was granted to her, before sin could take effect in her soul. (Cf The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII Copyright 1910 by Robert Appleton Company). It is also important to note that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception doesn't teach us that Mary was exempted from the temporal penalties of Adam - from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. However it does allow us to conclude that all the passions, all the debilities pertaining to original sin, were excluded from her existence, as well as obviously all other sins... This Eastern "presentation of the faith" (cf. the beginning of this post) expresses the Catholic Church's belief properly and without reservation.
|
|
|
|
|
