Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #61  
Old Mar 2, '12, 11:44 am
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,157
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
Just speaking for myself, I'd like to defer judgment on that question until I know what "just differences in theology" means.
I think he means we approach theology differently. For example the Western idea of "Atonement" vs. the Eastern idea of "Christ Victorious!"
__________________
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old Mar 2, '12, 5:28 pm
Peter J's Avatar
Peter J Peter J is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Posts: 10,143
Religion: non- Non-Catholic
Post Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Alright, that makes sense, but I still don't get the idea of "just differences in theology". Differences in theology are what make Orthodox Orthodox, Catholics Catholics, Lutherans Lutherans, Baptists Baptists, etc.
__________________
- Peter Jericho

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement

Inklings group
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old Mar 2, '12, 7:17 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two View Post
I would be curious to hear how it can be rectified.
I've asked Catholics to explain it, but that only leads to me getting accused of engaging in Polemics (questions are bad it seems).

If you know I'd love to hear it.
Then you should read the rest of the thread. Cavaradossi picked up where you left off and provided a non-emotional response to my point. He asked me to demonstrate how the modern EO argument is similar to the Pneumatomachian argument. And I did that.

I'll repeat it here, with some additions:

There were two forms of Pneumatomachi: (1) ones who believed that the Son was divine (such as the Tropici); (2) ones who believed the Son was not of the same substance as the Father (Arians, such as the Macedonians).

Fathers such as Pope St. Athanasius argued against the Tropici on the basis that their arguments against the full divinity of the Holy Sprit (since the Holy Spirit receives his Essence from Father and Son, he must be subordinate to them) could be just as well used to deny the full divinity of the Son (since the Son receives his Essence from the Father, he must be subordinate to the Father). But since they believed that the Son was fully divine and did not have a temporal beginning, their argument is inconsistent.

Other Fathers such as St. Basil fought against the Arian Macedonians similarly - just as the Arians cannot use the fact that the Son receives his Essence from the Father to deny the full divinity of the Son, then the Macedonians cannot use the fact that the Spirit receives his Essence from the Father and the Son (equivalently: the Father through the Son) to deny the full divinity of the Spirit.

There were other Pneumatomachi, btw, who taught versions of the heresy. For example, another sect taught that the Holy Spirit was a creature from the Son, and it is this specific heresy that St. John Damascene was preaching against when he taught that the Spirit is "not from the Son." The Damascene never denied the Catholic teaching of filioque, that the ousia of the Spirit is from the Father THROUGH the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old Mar 2, '12, 7:40 pm
Art321 Art321 is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: December 11, 2008
Posts: 1,196
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two View Post
I think he means we approach theology differently. For example the Western idea of "Atonement" vs. the Eastern idea of "Christ Victorious!"
Yes, this is exactly on what I was talking about. Another example would be the different views on the sin of Adam and Eve. I believe that the East believes that we did not inherit any guilt from Adam's sin but the West believes something to that effect.

Anyway, I believe what unities us definitely outweighs what divides us. I am not denying that there are major differences between us but rather am stating that our common heritage will always outnumber any differences we have with one another.

Last edited by Art321; Mar 2, '12 at 7:57 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old Mar 2, '12, 7:44 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
Alright, that makes sense, but I still don't get the idea of "just differences in theology". Differences in theology are what make Orthodox Orthodox, Catholics Catholics, Lutherans Lutherans, Baptists Baptists, etc.
I'll give you an example.

The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church finally settled their differences on the matter of the Natures of Christ.

Both Churches, in humility, without asking the other to give up their theology (i.e., their respective expressions of the common Faith), proferred the question: "What are we trying to teach by our different expressions of Faith?" First you must understand that the stark difference between the Oriental Orthodox expression of Faith (i.e., theology) and the Catholic expression of Faith (i.e. theology) is:
- Oriental Orthodox teach and believe that Jesus Christ is OF two natures.
- Catholics teach and believe that Jesus Christ is IN two natures.

Oriental Orthodox traditionally believed that the Catholics were denying the hypostatic union because the statement "IN two natures" implies that there is no true union of the human and divine natures.

On the other hand, the Catholics traditionally believed that the OO were denying the hypostatic union because the statement "OF two natures" implies that when the union occurs, one of the natures is completely subsumed in or demolished by the other Nature (there was an actual heresy that taught this - Eutychianism - but it was not what the OO teach/believe)..

It has taken 1500 years to understand that neither the OO nor the Catholics teach and believe what one THOUGHT the other taught and believed just because of the mere implications of the respective theological languages.

So the OO and the Catholic Churches have come out with joint declarations affirming the common Faith of both Churches that the Son is fully human and fully divine, and that the two natures are united without confusion, diminution, etc. of the two natures. And this was done without either Church having to let go of their respective theologies (i.e., expressions of the Faith).

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old Mar 2, '12, 7:49 pm
Cavaradossi's Avatar
Cavaradossi Cavaradossi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Posts: 3,397
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Dear brother Nine_Two,


Then you should read the rest of the thread. Cavaradossi picked up where you left off and provided a non-emotional response to my point. He asked me to demonstrate how the modern EO argument is similar to the Pneumatomachian argument. And I did that.
I see you still live in a fantasy world where you equate the "modern EO argument" with the Photian argument, clearly ignoring that the modern eastern Orthodox position draws also from Gregory Palamas and Blachernae.

Quote:
There were two forms of Pneumatomachi: (1) ones who believed that the Son was divine (such as the Tropici); (2) ones who believed the Son was not of the same substance as the Father (Arians, such as the Macedonians).

Fathers such as Pope St. Athanasius argued against the Tropici on the basis that their arguments against the full divinity of the Holy Sprit (since the Holy Spirit receives his Essence from Father and Son, he must be subordinate to them) could be just as well used to deny the full divinity of the Son (since the Son receives his Essence from the Father, he must be subordinate to the Father). But since they believed that the Son was fully divine and did not have a temporal beginning, their argument is inconsistent.

Other Fathers such as St. Basil fought against the Arian Macedonians similarly - just as the Arians cannot use the fact that the Son receives his Essence from the Father to deny the full divinity of the Son, then the Macedonians cannot use the fact that the Spirit receives his Essence from the Father and the Son (equivalently: the Father through the Son) to deny the full divinity of the Spirit.

There were other Pneumatomachi, btw, who taught versions of the heresy. For example, another sect taught that the Holy Spirit was a creature from the Son, and it is this specific heresy that St. John Damascene was preaching against when he taught that the Spirit is "not from the Son." The Damascene never denied the Catholic teaching of filioque, that the ousia of the Spirit is from the Father THROUGH the Son.
These of course are not the arguments put forth by St. Photius. I would like to see some actual proof of your position. Maybe a passage from St. Basil enumerating what the arguments of the Pneumatomachoi are, and then a passage from Photius' Mystagogy on the Holy Spirit with a similar argument would be helpful. Otherwise your arguments are simply vague and unsubstantiated.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old Mar 2, '12, 7:54 pm
Peter J's Avatar
Peter J Peter J is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Posts: 10,143
Religion: non- Non-Catholic
Post Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
I'll give you an example.

The Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church finally settled their differences on the matter of the Natures of Christ.

Both Churches, in humility, without asking the other to give up their theology (i.e., their respective expressions of the common Faith), proferred the question: "What are we trying to teach by our different expressions of Faith?" First you must understand that the stark difference between the Oriental Orthodox expression of Faith (i.e., theology) and the Catholic expression of Faith (i.e. theology) is:
- Oriental Orthodox teach and believe that Jesus Christ is OF two natures.
- Catholics teach and believe that Jesus Christ is IN two natures.

Oriental Orthodox traditionally believed that the Catholics were denying the hypostatic union because the statement "IN two natures" implies that there is no true union of the human and divine natures.

On the other hand, the Catholics traditionally believed that the OO were denying the hypostatic union because the statement "OF two natures" implies that when the union occurs, one of the natures is completely subsumed in or demolished by the other Nature (there was an actual heresy that taught this - Eutychianism - but it was not what the OO teach/believe)..

It has taken 1500 years to understand that neither the OO nor the Catholics teach and believe what one THOUGHT the other taught and believed just because of the mere implications of the respective theological languages.

So the OO and the Catholic Churches have come out with joint declarations affirming the common Faith of both Churches that the Son is fully human and fully divine, and that the two natures are united without confusion, diminution, etc. of the two natures. And this was done without either Church having to let go of their respective theologies (i.e., expressions of the Faith).

Blessings,
Marduk
Why are you telling me this?
__________________
- Peter Jericho

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement

Inklings group
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old Mar 2, '12, 7:55 pm
Nine_Two's Avatar
Nine_Two Nine_Two is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2009
Posts: 6,157
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

The failure of ignore, I'm still forced to catch glances through quotes.

I can see Mardukm's posts are as arrogant and polemical as ever.

In polite society we don't open conversations with insults.

Good day Mardukm.
__________________
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." - Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:01 pm
Peter J's Avatar
Peter J Peter J is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2008
Posts: 10,143
Religion: non- Non-Catholic
Post Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nine_Two View Post
The failure of ignore, I'm still forced to catch glances through quotes.
Ah, the ignore feature. I haven't used it in a while, but I remember it from yesteryear. It's a curious little feature really.
__________________
- Peter Jericho

"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement

Inklings group
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:05 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
Why are you telling me this?
Didn't you say you did not understand what is meant by "differences in theology?" I wanted to show you that there can be legitimate differences in theology yet still be united in the Faith that underlies that theology (i.e., expressions of Faith).

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:25 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
I see you still live in a fantasy world where you equate the "modern EO argument" with the Photian argument, clearly ignoring that the modern eastern Orthodox position draws also from Gregory Palamas and Blachernae.
Where did I mention St. Photius?

Quote:
These of course are not the arguments put forth by St. Photius.
Where did I mention St. Photius? Straw man, anyone?

Quote:
I would like to see some actual proof of your position. Maybe a passage from St. Basil enumerating what the arguments of the Pneumatomachoi are,
Can you ask this question in the original FIlioque thread. Don't want to derail the thread further. Thanks.

Quote:
and then a passage from Photius' Mystagogy on the Holy Spirit with a similar argument would be helpful. Otherwise your arguments are simply vague and unsubstantiated.
What does Photius have to do with it?

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:28 pm
Cavaradossi's Avatar
Cavaradossi Cavaradossi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Posts: 3,397
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Where did I mention St. Photius?


Where did I mention St. Photius? Straw man, anyone?


Can you ask this question in the original FIlioque thread. Don't want to derail the thread further. Thanks.


What does Photius have to do with it?

Blessings,
Marduk
I'm sorry, apparently you are not familiar with Photius. Basically every argument you attack the "modern EO" of using, are arguments which Photius used in some form or manner.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:37 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
I'm sorry, apparently you are not familiar with Photius. Basically every argument you attack the "modern EO" of using, are arguments which Photius used in some form or manner.
If you know they are arguments made by St. Photius, why are you asking me to quote him?

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:40 pm
Cavaradossi's Avatar
Cavaradossi Cavaradossi is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Posts: 3,397
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
If you know they are arguments made by St. Photius, why are you asking me to quote him?

Blessings,
Marduk
Because I cannot prove a negative (that is, I cannot show what the Pneumatomachoi did not teach). Therefore, it is reasonable that I ask that you find arguments made by the pneumatomachoi and then find St. Photius (or to even make it easier, "modern EO" polemicists) making the exact same argument. Your statement is otherwise unfalsifiable.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old Mar 2, '12, 8:46 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Contemplating Orthodoxy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
Because I cannot prove a negative (that is, I cannot show what the Pneumatomachoi did not teach). Therefore, it is reasonable that I ask that you find arguments made by the pneumatomachoi and then find St. Photius making the exact same argument.
I did not claim they came from St. Photius. These are arguments that EO often make, and I'm addressing the aguments made by those EO individuals. I still don't understand what St. Photius has to do with this. If you know St. Photius made those same arguments, then I ask you again, why should I bother to come up with any quotes from him? Your request is just not making any sense.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8379Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: svid2
5104CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
4417Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3859SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3698Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: daughterstm
3269Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3265Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3218Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: memphian
3094For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:44 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.