homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Pope: Other denominations not true churches
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
How can you write these things about Jesus? How on earth, no matter what point you think you are making, how can you use such imagery for the Healer of mankind, for the One that makes us whole? Don't you realize how much that imagery sucks?

Next thing he'll say Jesus was crucified and died or something.

Dafyd

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jengie Jon, could you explain what you mean by me showing distinct hyper Calvinistic tendencies?

Dafyd, firstly even on the Cross Jesus was in no need. He wasn't crucified out of need, but out of freedom for our need. We were in need; He could easily get down from the Cross and bring myriads of angels to deal with His crucifiers. Secondly, the illustration used makes us worse than those that crucified Him. I am amazed that you think we can use such imagery for the holy one. Perhaps this is where the emphasis on death and suffering Western Christianity puts as far as Christ is concerned leads us. I don't know.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
andreas, I think the confusion exists because there is a difference in the 'here and now' between "Christ" and "Christ in us". Which I don't think IngoB made clear initially, but I think he has made clear subsequently. At present, and for that reason, I don't find the analogy offensive, but I'm not sure I fully understand it. I haven't heard back from IngoB yet, so who knows? Maybe I'll be offended after all?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Barnabas, there are two issues, one has to do with the imagery used, which I find sick, and the other has to do with the notion that the church can be divided, which I find a relatively modern concept.

I spoke earlier of a compromise the Catholic Church has to make now, because of the way their understanding of what the church is developed. The idea that we are divided and that Christ prayed that we get one is part of that compromise, I think.

I think the more traditional view is "they came from us but they were not of us". Today the lines between heresy and orthodoxy are blurred. Which leads to contradicitons and compromises.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks andreas. I want to ponder on that and do a bit of reading. I'll get back to you.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

Perhaps this is where the emphasis on death and suffering Western Christianity puts as far as Christ is concerned leads us.

No, the view that Jesus was a needful, thirsty, desperate, blood-drenched, criminal is the where the orthodox view, shared by East and West, that Jesus was fully human gets us. It has also a source of comfort to millions of suffering people down through the ages. No doubt, it is shocking to use such 'imagery of the Holy One', but God shocking - being sufficiently humble to accept death, 'even death on a cross'.

Please, please, could you stop trying to pass off your heterodox rejection of traditional and scriptural language as somehow 'Orthodox', and claiming that the problem is that we Westerners simply don't understand it.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Please, please, could you stop trying to pass off your heterodox rejection of traditional and scriptural language as somehow 'Orthodox', and claiming that the problem is that we Westerners simply don't understand it.

lol. Dwarf, having read about the way theologians like Tillich present Christ to you, I am not surprised you think my view is the heterodox one. However, I will re-affirm my view that Western Christianity over-emphasizes suffering in Jesus, and I can point you to all sort of Orthodox theologians that view that "emphasis" as the cause for all sorts of problems.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
andreas, I am about as theologically similar to Tillich as I am similar in appearance to Kate Moss.

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't say you were similar to him. I spoke about theologians like him, Tillich being an example of influential Western theologians.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
andreas

The sharp exchanges between you and DOD were on the point I was pondering. I remembered a comment by Kallistos Ware and a quote from the mystic, Julian of Norwich.

"Death has both a physical and a spiritual aspect and of the two it is the spiritual that is the more terrible .. We should not think only of the bodily sufferings ... the scourging, the stumbling beneath the weight of the Cross, the nails, the thirst, the heat, the torment...The true meaning of the Passion is found, not in this only, but much more so in his spiritual sufferings - in his sense of failure, isolation and utter loneliness, in the pain of love offered but rejected

Kallistos Ware"


Isaiah has it right. He was despised and rejected. A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. This cannot be minimised, but nor should it be overstated to the point of morbidity either. So here is Julian of Norwich

"Wouldst thou learn the Lord's meaning in this thing? Who showed it thee? Love. What showed he thee? Love. Wherefore showed it he. For Love ...Then said our good Lord Jesus Christ. 'Art thou well pleased that I suffered for thee'. I said 'Yea, good Lord, I thank thee; yea good Lord, blessed mayst thou be'. Then said Jesus our kind Lord 'If thou art pleased, I am pleased; it is a joy, a bliss, an endless satifying to me that ever I suffered Passion for thee; and if I might suffer more, I would suffer more'".

Remarkable words, also quoted by Kallistos Ware at the end of his section on the suffering of Christ in "The Orthodox Way".

andreas, there are undoubtedly morbid aspects to Western Christianity - some have called these Crosstianity. But I think Kallistos Ware is being both orthodox and Orthodox in what he says, and in his use of the Julian quote. And this particular protestant nonconformist finds himself in agreement with him.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Barnabas

I have read bishop Kallistos' The Orthodox Way. I have found there richness, pearls that come from antiquity find their way to our world through that book. I have also found some things of concern, namely bishop Kallistos' own contribution to theology.

At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus. You see, for the fathers, death comes with man and not with Satan. It is the entire world Adam's sin changes, I think because he is the one that partakes in both the sensible and the spiritual world, and not Satan.

So, the bishop inserts his explanation but he does not make it explicit that this is not what the ancients thought... Moreover, his explanation becomes problematic, if we take into account not just the paleontological evidence that death existed, but also the scientific theory of natural selection! If death is due to Satan, then a) Satan becomes the creator of the living beings and b) God would have created a life-less Universe hadn't Satan inserted death which through natural selection led to life.

Moreover, I found of concern the bishop's idea that Jesus experienced separation from God, and that this is what "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" refers to. Although I think this view has been expressed in the past, and that it is not unique to the bishop, I think that the patristic consensus is that Jesus never experienced separation from God. In my view, that would be absurd, because Jesus is not a man in union with God, but God coming in the flesh... so even His flesh could not have experienced alienation from God, because that would mean alienation also from God the Word Himself, which cannot have happened in the One Lord Jesus Christ.

Anyway, we are discussing about the way we view the church. I think that the blurred boundaries between heresy and orthodoxy is at the core of our discussion. When they are blurred, it is easy to think of one Christianity divided. When they are clear, it is easier to see that in terms of "the Western part of the Roman Empire broke away from the Church and the early Reformers broke away from Catholicism, and the numerous Protestant denominations broke away from each other".

[ 14. July 2007, 11:57: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the heart tugging emphasis on Christ's passion is exaggerated by the doctrine of PSA and the like. Yes He suffered, as we do, but a heck of a lot of mankind has suffered far worse. When the emphasis is on the incarnation of God into humanity firstly by bridging the gap between the Creator and created and thus into the human condition (fall or no fall) then the perspective naturally changes.

I know it was posted earlier but I can't remember how Kallistos used the "Satan" information in this. Far as I know the story relates to the Fall in the angelic realms and the, ongoing, battle of ego in usurping the place of God (and from this the battle with the 'principalities and powers) in which the Archangel Michael leads the defenders for God and the defence is in his name which is a question, Who is like God?

Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
andreas

I appreciate we've become tangential here, but maybe one more exchange?

I'm glad we've identified that key difference, for it would indeed affect the way you look at the cross, or any meditations on it, or analogies drawn from it. Here is what Kallistos Ware says.

A second glimpse is given us at the Crucifixion, where Christ cries with a loud voice "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me". Once again, full weight must be given to these words ... Each word from the Cross means what it says. And if the cry "My God, my God .." is to signify anything at all, it must mean that at this moment Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God. Not only does he shed his blood for us, he accepts even the loss of God.

I truly thought this was common ground. How, otherwise, is the cry of dereliction explained?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear Barnabas

What is common ground is what the Divine Outlaw Dwarf said, about Christ's humility... This is very important and it can't be stressed enough, that God is a humble God and He does not impose Himself, but waits for our response... He is like the gentle breeze and not like an earthquake (to use the imagery of Elijah).

Amazing stuff. God becomes man and comes as an unknown fellow in Bethleem, lives with unimportant people, etc etc.

Now, as far as bishop Kallistos' explanation is concerned... In my view, what Jesus was doing on the Cross, when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is chanting. He was chanting, "epselne" (in Greek, the verb being related with the noun psalmos, which means psalm), He was reciting the Psalms, pointing us to the psalm hat begins that way, to its content and to the things the psalm says about the Resurrection. So, far from experiencing alienation!

And as to how we are to understand the prayer in Gesthimane, I found an explanation in Stelios Ramfos' latest work, which I find interesting. His sadness had to do with the fact that he could not communicate Himself to anybody; His disciples could not understand Him, they could not feel Him, He was there but the reason for Him being there was not communed to anybody. Like what happened on the Cross. Under the Cross, there were Romans and Jews and priests and His disciples, but they were not in communion with Him.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

Now, as far as bishop Kallistos' explanation is concerned... In my view, what Jesus was doing on the Cross, when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is chanting. He was chanting, "epselne" (in Greek, the verb being related with the noun psalmos, which means psalm), He was reciting the Psalms, pointing us to the psalm hat begins that way, to its content and to the things the psalm says about the Resurrection. So, far from experiencing alienation!

This is pretty much standard use in Judaism, and even in referring to Anglican hymns, quoting the first line includes the whole. The whole of the psalm needs to be read to understand Christ here.


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree. Also note that in bishop Kallistos' book, in the chapter where he speaks about that, the quotes he makes from Orthodox sources, they don't speak about Jesus experiencing spiritual death - alienation from God, but about Jesus experiencing physical death for us.

[ 14. July 2007, 13:26: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
andreas

I think I'll leave it there. Of course I know the Psalm 22 source argument. It leaves open the issue of why that Psalm, and that particular cry from it, should have struck him as so appropriate. A matter of both identification with humanity and separation from God. Thanks to you and to Myrrh for your explanations.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No problem Barnabas. I have re-read that psalm, and I see the psalmist not in separation from God. On the contrary, he says something about God being with him. His cry has to do with the other people and the way they afflict him - are not with him... the way I read it it's about the people being separated from him, he cries about the physicality of what happens, about other people, and not about his own self. Is your reading of that psalma different? What do you think about my reading? Sorry for pursuing that tangent here.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear andreas

First verse separation. Second one as well. But then he begins to reflect on his own sufferings and his knowledge that others who have put their trust in God have "not been disappointed". He pleads in verse 11. "Do not be far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no one to help". And then recounts his suffering and his anguish. leading to the key verse 19.

"But you O Lord, be not far off! O my strength, come quickly to help me (NIV)".

The hope of the one experiencing scoffing and persecution, having lost any sense of God near him, that God will not be as far off as He is being experienced. That's faith. Sometimes its like crying out from the bottom of a deep well.

I'd say the Psalm is about the experience of suffering, made worse by both a sense of forsakenness. God's absence and the knowledge that He has helped others who were faithful. It has always seemed very reasonable to me to see this as a reflection on what it was like to be Jesus the man as that point in time. So I don't see it as a representative act of prayer from the cross, but as a personal one, deeply relevant to his circumstances. And if so, I can't escape the conclusion that the words of the Psalm themselves confirm both the separation and its temporary nature, as the last verse makes clear.

This is a brief overview, done rapidly. I'm bothered that we're derailing the thread. PM if you like - we can look at what we discuss offline and maybe put some stuff back here or elsewhere afterwards.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to try to get this a bit back on track, we are discussing the passability of the Church, Christ's body, not the passibility of Christ the head.

Is the Church incapapble of suffering?

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
PM if you like - we can look at what we discuss offline and maybe put some stuff back here or elsewhere afterwards.

I have started a new thread in Kerygmania

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Just to try to get this a bit back on track, we are discussing the passability of the Church, Christ's body, not the passibility of Christ the head.

Is the Church incapapble of suffering?

Apologies FCB. You've said succinctly what I was trying to say before the detour.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Is the Church incapapble of suffering?

The Church triumpant, that worships in the eternal presence of God? I've no idea. Though it is I think eternally undivided, because Christ is undivided, so if it suffers it does not suffer from its own division.

Particular churches on earth? Of course they are capable of suffering.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515

 - Posted      Profile for Pokrov   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Is the Church incapapble of suffering?

I always take Act's 'Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me ?' to be fairly descriptive about the linkage between Christ and his Church. We suffer 'in Christ' and he 'in us' as far as I can tell.

--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!

Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
We suffer 'in Christ' and he 'in us' as far as I can tell.

More or less my thoughts on this matter.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have just read the last 5 pages of this thread and the one thing that I felt really required comment, that no-one else had picked up on was this:

quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"And once upon a time Latin was the vernacular. Then it was a language spoken by educated persons."

This is actually a misconception. As someone who knows a little about the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages it was actually the case that the latin spoken in the liturgy (when it changed from greek to latin with the exception of the Kyrie of course) was completely different to that spoken by the majority of the population and would have been as difficult to understand then as it is now.

Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart. Well that it what I have argued in the past and I have heard Michael Lang argue it as well

I am quite sure that neither Cicero nor Ovid would agree that Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart. Or is this a stange, new definition of "always" that I was not previously aware of?

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I am quite sure that neither Cicero nor Ovid would agree that Latin has always been meant as a sacred language set apart.

I think the point is that the Latin of the Mass is quite a different dialect from that written by Cicero or Ovid. And that Latin was different again from the Vulgar Latin spoken in the streeets.

Though I suspect (not knowing Latin at all well) that give or take a few hundred Hebrew words and technical theological terms, the ancients would easily have been able to read Church Latin.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This thread seems to have degenerated -- rightly so probably -- into tangents. That being the case, let me add that what I was taught in high school Latin was that by the 3rd century or so the language of the common people in Rome itself was no longer much like the literary Latin of the "Golden Age". It's always seemed to me that the Latin of the Mass is gramatically simple compared to classical Latin, with less rigour of agreement of parts of speech and a modernised and more standardised word order than in the highly inflected classical Latin (which also has at times tremendously long and complex sentences, for which Cicero is one notorious exemplar). The most immediate weirdness, however, is the pronounciation differences between classical Latin and its Italianate ecclesiastical daughter (there's also those extra letters that monks invented).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614

 - Posted      Profile for Vesture, Posture, Gesture     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, to clarify I did mean the use of Latin in an Ecclesiastical Liturgical context.

--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"

Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura

Wise Drunkard
# 1066

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura   Email Bonaventura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus.

TANGENT

Interesting, the last time I exchanged views on this with Myrrh she said that the fall of Satan myth was pretty much standard Orthodox teaching.

(Mind you this version of the fall is in line with certain pseudoepigraphical Jewish writings.)

/TANGENT

--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco

Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

At one point he explains that the creation fell because of Satan's Fall, a spiritual event that took place before Adam's Fall. That way, he tries to explain the scientific fact that death existed before the first man. However, in doing so, he should have made it clear that this is his own personal opinion, and not the patristic consensus.

TANGENT

Interesting, the last time I exchanged views on this with Myrrh she said that the fall of Satan myth was pretty much standard Orthodox teaching.

(Mind you this version of the fall is in line with certain pseudoepigraphical Jewish writings.)

/TANGENT

OK, I might have got confused here because I meant the story was common teaching, but I've never heard that creation fell with that, as Andreas explains above. Does seem that Kallistos is presenting a new idea here, some sort of conflation of the two events, interesting and I wouldn't automatically dismiss it, can anyone remember where it was posted? The "fall" however does refer back to the St Michael story and not to Adam and Eve which is referred to "ancestral sin". I think it's only recently that the Orthodox have been using the Augustinian term out of discussions with the West, but it does seem to create more confusion as if the differences weren't confusing enough already.

Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, that's exactly my point. He sees that paleontology and theology contradict each other and he modifies the traditional theory pretending he is just repeating it... In his book, The Orthodox Way, in the chapter God as Creator, in sub-chapter 8 "evil, pain and man's fall" (in my version) he tells that story.

Bonaventura, I'm not saying that his mentioning the fall of Satan is strange, I'm saying that his connecting it with the death that pre-existed Adam is strange (none of the fathers did that; they all connected death with Adam, since they did not have the paleontological evidence we now have). But even that, is contradicted by the modern understanding of natural selection which the bishop has not taken into account. Still, it's an attempt to "discuss" with modern world and science...

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bonaventura

Wise Drunkard
# 1066

 - Posted      Profile for Bonaventura   Email Bonaventura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
The "fall" however does refer back to the St Michael story and not to Adam and Eve which is referred to "ancestral sin".

The difference is in which of the two myths one assigns the origin of evil to. The theological difference is that if the origin of evil (the fall) is assigned to the rebellion of the angels, then human beings are less perpetrators than victims of evil. The ancestral sin scenario on the other hand stresses human responsibility and choice.

I think some of the earliest fathers held the cosmic rebellion myth as the origin of evil.
Kallistos is certainly not presenting a new idea here. However, his new slant on it is original.

--------------------
“I think you are all mistaken in your theological beliefs. The God or Gods of Christianity are not there, whether you call them Father, Son and Holy Spirit or Aunt, Uncle and Holy Cow.” -El Greco

Posts: 473 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:


The difference is in which of the two myths one assigns the origin of evil to. The theological difference is that if the origin of evil (the fall) is assigned to the rebellion of the angels, then human beings are less perpetrators than victims of evil. The ancestral sin scenario on the other hand stresses human responsibility and choice.

I think some of the earliest fathers held the cosmic rebellion myth as the origin of evil.
Kallistos is certainly not presenting a new idea here. However, his new slant on it is original. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that it isn't implicit as a possibility in Orthodox view which doesn't see the origin of evil in Adam and Eve.

Original Sin and Ancestral Sin are distinctly different concepts.

The first posits an immortal Adam and Eve living in God's grace which he created as link between creator and created and with free will,
both of which were lost when A&E disobeyed 'the injunction not to eat from the tree'. Losing grace by their choice they fell into 'sinful nature' which is damned and which included death and the absence of free will to turn to God, and this was the punishment for the disobedience of the actual act of eating from the tree which is seen as, and I'm going on an explanation of this by Pope John Paul II, as wanting to know the moral base of existence which it says is God's prerogative only.

Contrast with Orthodox who view the prototype mankind as neither mortal nor immortal and see the injunction as a warning of consequence in eating the fruit (rather than a prohibition of eating from that tree) which is both good and evil and entailed no loss of grace or free will in the relationship with God. Some fathers say their disobedience was in eating before they were 'adult' enough, but however, the Adam and Eve story is seen as mankind's exploration into the nature of what they were created to be in the image and likeness of God so rather than moral knowledge itself being prohibited it's a given that includes this knowledge - "they have become like Us" can hardly been seen as a "fall"... The exclusion from the garden as written, lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever, seen as excluding them from immortality (they were neither mortal nor immortal) until they learned to live without sin, hence they say the reason for Christ's incarnation.

As prototype of mankind Orthodox see each child born in their original innocence and until the age of reason, being able to tell the difference between good and evil, without sin.

Two completely different views of mankind. The first Augustinian is very much Manichean, damned nature from evil as material creation itself by a lesser God, only changing the emphasis on blame, to putting the blame for being in it onto the original parents.

This Augustinian view of course can't be supported by the text because its claim begins with a perfect immortal state which isn't written or implicit anywhere and actually contradicted.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793

 - Posted      Profile for recidite_plebians     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
r_p,

the Ship is certainly a place for people to vent their rage, but at last here in Purgatory you will have to forgive me for trying to draw conclusions from what you vent. And the only conclusion I can draw from much of what you've said is that any RC who does not share your rage must be either willfully blind, stupid, or corrupt. Is there some other alternative that I have not considered?

That of a critically open mind perhaps?

There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.

Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?

Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
FCB

Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495

 - Posted      Profile for FCB   Author's homepage   Email FCB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:
There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.

Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?

I guess I was curious as to what you thought was going on with people like me, who perceive flaws in the Church, but would reject the claim that "as an institution it is rotten" and do not share your sense of outrage. Of the options you list above, I guess I'd fall into the "misplaced loyalty" category.

For myself, I would say that part of what attracts me to Catholicism is its deep embededness in history. It is a tradition in the full blown sense of the word: not simply a set of ideas, but an actual embodies community extended through time and around the world. I see this rooted in the fundamentally sacramental approach of Catholicism. But the price we pay for this is in a lumbering and sometimes insensitive institutional superstructure, careerism and pigheadedness among clergy, etc. But it's a price I am, thus far, willing to pay to be part of this tradition, because I don't see an alternative. After all, Jesus could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had forgotten the whole "apostle" idea and done everything himself. But somehow it seemed to be part of his plan to surround himself with fallible, sinful, pigheaded, careerist people to whom he entrusted his message.

--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.

Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
You are shouting. Not me. Or my "pals", whoever they may be.

You may assert as much as you like, and shout and shout as much as you please, and try to torment and accuse the Catholic Church of ill-motives and spurious intentions. ...

Sorry, no. I have not "shouted." You just can't admit that there's another side to anything than the official RCC line. You have shown no interest in the facts as presented by others. I can't say more about your or your motivations without getting unPurgatorial.

Your exclusivist assertions don't make us any less Catholic.

Ross

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I have not "shouted." You just can't admit that there's another side to anything than the official RCC line. You have shown no interest in the facts as presented by others. I can't say more about your or your motivations without getting unPurgatorial.

Your exclusivist assertions don't make us any less Catholic.

Ross, I'm not a Catholic, so that might make it easier to correspond with me. I am, however, curious about what facts you are referring to. Could you elaborate, or at least enumerate?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Professor, I think Rossweisse refers to something like this and also to the catholic theology that is still found in (parts?) the Anglican communion.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Andreas actually has a great deal of the right of it.

I've posted assorted evidence for the Anglican position a number of times. I regret that I do not have time to do it again right now. But the Greek Orthodox accepted our orders and sacraments at one time, at least, since GOs in the US who could not attend their own churches were encouraged to attend and receive the sacraments in Episcopal churches.

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by recidite_plebians:

There is much in the RCC that is good, but as an institution it is rotten. Trying to pretend otherwise out of misplaced loyalty or blind obedience, or worse still outright denial, strikes me as contrary to intellect.

Why not tell me what alternatives you think there are?

I would say that the Church (whether by that you mean the Catholic Church or the RCC+us "defective ecclesial communities") is an always has been a community of saints and sinners, and the clergy, despite whatever ontological change may be wrought by ordination, are no exception to that. As I've said earlier, I've known some very good Catholic clergymen but if, like you, I want to bang my drum, I've also come across some bastards along my way and I've encountered similar in Protestant churches too.

'Twas always ever thus and 'twilt always be so, this side of the eschaton.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
for interest:

quote:
Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=24233


A Russian Orthodox official who represents his church on a Catholic-Orthodox commission said his church rules out any compromise on papal primacy.

"Historically, the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the Christian church, from our point of view, was that of honor, not jurisdiction --the jurisdiction of the pope of Rome was never applied to all the churches," said Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna and Austria, who represents the Russian Orthodox Church on the International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches.

The commission is scheduled to meet in October in Ravenna, Italy, for the 10th plenary since its creation in 1979. After a six-year break, the 60-member commission reconvened in September to debate conciliarity and authority.

"There can be no compromise whatsoever" on papal primacy, Bishop Hilarion said in a May 28 interview with Russia's Interfax newsagency.

He added that "the aim of the theological dialogue is not at all to reach a compromise. For us, it is rather to identify the church's original view of primacy."

The Moscow Patriarchate was drafting its own document on primacy, which would help him "assert our official point of view" at future talks, said Bishop Hilarion.

Full article:
(Papal-primacy compromise out, Orthodox church official says)



[ 17. July 2007, 17:55: Message edited by: Myrrh ]

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Triple Tiara

Ship's Papabile
# 9556

 - Posted      Profile for Triple Tiara   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know just how much you like long passages of internet to read Myrrh, so I am posting this one for you. No need to respond [Biased]

Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Prinmacy

Hey look! I've learnt to make my links bold just like you do [Yipee]

--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.

Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just noticed they were in bold... They look nice that way. Hm. I will read the text you linked us TT and perhaps make a reply later [Razz]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Father, I read much of the text's first half. Remember what Myrrh said at another point about the Cardinal dealing with Catholic-Orthodox dialogues saying that the Patriarch of Constantinople is not, for the Orthodox, the equivalent of the Pope of Rome?

I think we have here a misunderstanding similar to that.

I mean, the author of that text seems to be reading the ancient sources attributing a particular meaning to their words (words like preside, etc.) that the original authors did not intend. The ancient texts he quotes could have been written now by Orthodox bishops towards an Orthodox Rome (or are being said for the Orthodox Archbishop of New Rome)... Of course, their meaning would be very different to what the author understands.

Anyway, the text is very long, it doesn't mention many historical incidents from that period that do not support the Catholic view on primacy, and I will stop here.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
recidite_plebians
Shipmate
# 12793

 - Posted      Profile for recidite_plebians     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I guess I was curious as to what you thought was going on with people like me, who perceive flaws in the Church, but would reject the claim that "as an institution it is rotten" and do not share your sense of outrage. Of the options you list above, I guess I'd fall into the "misplaced loyalty" category.

For myself, I would say that part of what attracts me to Catholicism is its deep embededness in history. It is a tradition in the full blown sense of the word: not simply a set of ideas, but an actual embodies community extended through time and around the world. I see this rooted in the fundamentally sacramental approach of Catholicism. But the price we pay for this is in a lumbering and sometimes insensitive institutional superstructure, careerism and pigheadedness among clergy, etc. But it's a price I am, thus far, willing to pay to be part of this tradition, because I don't see an alternative. After all, Jesus could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had forgotten the whole "apostle" idea and done everything himself. But somehow it seemed to be part of his plan to surround himself with fallible, sinful, pigheaded, careerist people to whom he entrusted his message.

And in your last paragraph I am in almost complete agreement with you save that the alternative that was thrust upon me was to become "unchurched" as a direct consequence of the hostility show towards me because my first marriage failed. What hurts is the way the RCC "tore the ball out of my hands and took it away" and would do no more than let me watch the game carry on once I had been told to leave the park (sorry, bad analogy, but it has been a long day and it's the best I can do right now). Everyone else appears to be playing happily the way I once did, except they are oblivious to the bad calls made by the ref while I now see those calls for what they are. I wish it were different, but it's not so there is no sense pretending otherwise.

God, I think, is a cynic with a cruel sense of humour regarding who he plays favourites with.

Posts: 591 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stephen
Shipmate
# 40

 - Posted      Profile for Stephen   Email Stephen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I know just how much you like long passages of internet to read Myrrh, so I am posting this one for you. No need to respond [Biased]

Ante-Nicene Development of Papal Prinmacy

Hey look! I've learnt to make my links bold just like you do [Yipee]

Clever clogs!!
[Two face]
But one spelling mistake I fear,Father! [Biased]

--------------------
Best Wishes
Stephen

'Be still,then, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the nations and I will be exalted in the earth' Ps46 v10

Posts: 3954 | From: Alto C Clef Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804

 - Posted      Profile for Olaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for jumping back into the mix so late in the game, but I gave myself some time to have a look at the documents suggested to me on pages 1 and 2 of this thread before commenting further.

The pope's message didn't surprise me. As has been stated, it is nothing new. It does slightly cause me a bit of concern for two reasons, the first because it does not offer any way for the other 'communities' to become 'churches' in the eyes of the RCC. The pope could have very simply stated something like, 'Through the continuing dialogue that we share with our brothers and sisters in baptism, we remain committed to seeking ways to strengthen our relationship and build each other up as the Church through joint witness, service, and prayer in the world.'

Second, on a more technical level, I wonder if the translation from Latin to English (and a possible spin or bias) has placed too great a separation between the translations of church and ecclesial. In the Latin, wouldn't the words be very similar?

Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163

 - Posted      Profile for Sir Pellinore   Email Sir Pellinore   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Look, as an Anglican, I take the recent emanation from Rome as par for the course.

What the current Pope says is in no way binding on me.

That is what is important.

Leaving aside theology or any backhand swipes at Rome, this is a fairly conservative, inward looking Pope in my reading.

Someone else in his position probably would have used more conciliatory language but he doesn't.

This is, in a way, a "party statement" by the CEO of Vatican Inc.

Holy Orthodoxy does not have such a Roman legalistic approach to authority nor one "Big Boss" but goes back to the decisions of the First Seven Councils of the (then undivided) Church. Authority is, if you like, conciliar. But that Council has to be one of the whole Church. Orthodox, even though they believe they could do so, have never done.

One of the reasons I remain an Anglican is that, like the late Archbishop Ramsey and the current Archbishop of Canterbury, I believe it is possible to be a perfectly orthodox Catholic Christian in the Anglican Church.

I think, with the formal split between East and West in 1054, the position of the Pope became exaggerated in the West. In the East he was regarded as having a special place of honour but not having the authority to define Christian teaching, which was the prerogative of an Ecumenical Council of the Church (like the First Seven Councils).

The late Sebastian Bullough, a Dominician and former Catholic Chaplain at Cambridge, UK, once published an article to that effect in the journal then called "Tomorrow" and was, as far as I know, not arraigned for heresy.

The "conciliar" view of church authority was once popular in RC circles around the time of Vatican Two.

It was supported by people of some standing like the late Bishop Christopher Butler OSB, a former Abbott of Downside.

Now the statement has come, I agree with DOD that we need to be able to have a fair and frank exchange of views from the different churches.

One of the dangers of a lot of well meaning ecumenism is that it's heavy on motherhood statements and good intentions but little else.

Therefore I support the right of those from a straight Protestant background (or any other point of view), like Mudfrog, to speak out in conscience. Without personal vilification which I don't think M indulged in.

I do, personally, have reservations about where Rome stands on several matters. That doesn't stop me having tremendous respect and affection for my Catholic friends.

There was a stage when we Christians were vilifying, murdering and torturing each other (and Jews, Muslims and "pagans") in the name of God.

Thank God we've improved slightly since then!

My own personal opinion is that we, as Christians, are all in schism with each other.

May God forgive us all for this mutual, long term sin against the Holy Ghost.

In love and sadness to you all,

P

--------------------
Well...

Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621

 - Posted      Profile for ORGANMEISTER         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've read thru this thread.......I've also said to myself that I was not going to post to it but........

Martin L., I agree with what you would have liked to have seen. So would I. However, such a statement would be counter to RC ecclesiology, their teachings regarding the supremacy of the Papacy, and about a dozen or so other teachings. It just isn't going to happen under this Pope regardless of his personal support for the Augsburg declaration on Justification or anything else. To do so would nulligy much of the statements of Trent and those that have come down during the last 4 centuries many of which seem aimed at solidifying and hanging on to power by the Vatican establishment.

The Vatican is not going to give up it's claims to be the "one, true Church" in which resides the "fullness of truth". Benedict's recent statements simply serve to reinforce the RCC's long standing position.

Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools