FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 (/showthread.php?tid=51229)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 10:23 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Sometimes that is how it feels in these discussions.

Sort of the like the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which, it at least seems to me, is often denied as a point in the face of the declaration, but it really completely in harmony with the lex orandi of the Orthodox.

They deny it because they think we believe Mary was preserved from the guilt of Adam's sin, as if the rest of us weren't.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 10:29 AM)MiradoBlackWarrior Wrote: St. Thomas in the Summa asserts (with his predecessors) that the punishment from Adam's sin was not only death but absence of the beatific vision of heaven (both from the perspective of heaven and hell).  To not be in heaven, I would have to be guilty of some sin.  If I were an infant, with no sin, how would God justly punish me by sending me to limbo/dead/hell?

From both eastern and western thought, where does Elijah fit in the picture?

Really, that's funny, because the same people who love to quote Thomas Aquinas (St. Thomas was an apostle who preached in India) say that we can't just go to heaven, we have to do something to earn it, and God doesn't owe us heaven.  So which is it?  If we aren't owed heaven, then it's not a punishment if we don't go there.  If it's a punishment to not go there, then we deserve it as long as we don't accrue any demerits.

Consequently, this also shows the error of your thinking.  You have a preconceived notion that no heaven = punishment, therefore, if a baby doesn't go to heaven, they must be guilty of something to be punished.  No, babies are guilty of any sin, that's obvious.  Start from that point and then plot your theology rightly.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 09:36 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 09:08 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 08:46 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 06:27 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 06:25 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Let's not be ridiculous.

???

"Autumn resumes the land, ruffles the woods   
with smoky wings, entangles them. Trees shine   
out from their leaves, rocks mildew to moss-green;   
the avenues are spread with brittle floods."

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

I'm sure this means something but...?

"another remnant of alchemical twaddle
that ceases to be twaddle in some cases"

???

Nope not getting any clearer.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 09:24 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 06:06 AM)TrentCath Wrote: :scratchinghead:

Are you suggesting there is someone better?

I cannot imagine that anyone is so foolish as to insult St Thomas Aquinas and if so I have no interest in discussing this with such a one, who in mocking St Thomas Aquinas has placed themselves outside the pale of the discussion so far as I am concerned.

If one does not believes The Angelic Doctor is the greatest of all the church doctors, I'll grant that it is commonly accepted either to be him or St Augustine but I think him the greater.

Well, St. John Chrysostom is far superior to Aquinas or Augustine, of course.  I don't expect you to agree with that, but I'm certainly not going to storm off like a petulant, crying child because you disagree with me.

Seriously, this aquinolatry that is rampant in the West is unbecoming.  "What?  How DARE you or anyone think anyone could possibly better than the most glorious, most eloquent, most angelic Aquinas?!?!?  Anyone with a tenth of a brain can see he is quite plainly far and above every other theologian to ever grace the Church?  Why, if it were possible, I would say even he was immaculately conceived, as he is almost better than the glorious, most beautiful, most immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary herself!"   :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Amusing but entirely beside the point, one can say 'I disagree' one does not to post LOL smilies in mockery, that is shameful behavior and entirely unbecoming of a Christian, moreover it shows great ignorance of Aquinas as well.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 09:36 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 08:24 AM)TrentCath Wrote: A view that is thoroughly rejected by The Catholic Church, '2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.' Council of Trent, Decree on original sin

One can say that death is on of the consequences of sin but to say it is the only one defies the reality of sin. It is clear that man also has an inclination to sin, that his will is gravely weakened and that man can no longer possess original justice and indeed does not. Death may be the result of original sin, but it cannot be original sin per se.

If death was original sin, then what would be the punishment for original sin? Surely God cannot have let it gone unpunished? Further how do we deal with the question of mans original justice or will? Do we deny that man had original justice in the first place or deny that mans will was stronger before than after the fall? If we do not do we say that these are merely consequences of death? Neither are these statements are supported by the tradition of the church or scripture and the second is simply illogical, mans loss of original justice occurred because of Adams sin not death, it is therefore clear that original sin cannot be death.

It's interesting that the very quote Trent uses to say it's not death, contradicts Trent by saying it's death.   By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in that* all have sinned.
*in that.  In whom is an erroneous translation, showing what is, admittedly, probably a minor fault, but a fault nonetheless, in the Vulgate.  The Orthodox like to harp on that error as being the fault of the Western understanding of Original Sin, and it is true that it is probably at least in part responsible for the direction the West has taken its understanding of Original Sin, though I don't think it is as huge a divergence as the Orthodox make of it.

"Surely, God cannot have let it gone unpunished?"  Um, death is the punishment.  Adam sinned capitally, and received a capital punishment.  What an odd mistake to make, to think that death is a consequence but not the punishment itself.  I didn't say that death was original sin.  I said, the curse of Adam is death.  The original sin, was commited by Adam, not you or me, so the guilt of that sin rests solely upon Adam.

Just no, you haven't read the documents.

Lets look at it again shall we '2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. '

It's quite clear then that original sin is not death alone, now if you don't accept the Council of Trent then quite obviously this won't serve as evidence to you but what you can't is twist the plain and ordinary meaning of the text in order to deny that it censures the opinion you hold.

As for believing the vulgate is wrong 'Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. ' (Council of Trent)

Again if you are not Catholic it does not serve as evidence, if you are it is sufficient to show what the Catholic teaching is.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 10:41 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 10:29 AM)MiradoBlackWarrior Wrote: St. Thomas in the Summa asserts (with his predecessors) that the punishment from Adam's sin was not only death but absence of the beatific vision of heaven (both from the perspective of heaven and hell).  To not be in heaven, I would have to be guilty of some sin.  If I were an infant, with no sin, how would God justly punish me by sending me to limbo/dead/hell?

From both eastern and western thought, where does Elijah fit in the picture?

Really, that's funny, because the same people who love to quote Thomas Aquinas (St. Thomas was an apostle who preached in India) say that we can't just go to heaven, we have to do something to earn it, and God doesn't owe us heaven.  So which is it?  If we aren't owed heaven, then it's not a punishment if we don't go there.  If it's a punishment to not go there, then we deserve it as long as we don't accrue any demerits.

Consequently, this also shows the error of your thinking.  You have a preconceived notion that no heaven = punishment, therefore, if a baby doesn't go to heaven, they must be guilty of something to be punished.  No, babies are guilty of any sin, that's obvious.  Start from that point and then plot your theology rightly.

Wrong, no babies are guilty of any personal sin but they have still inherited original sin, as such if they die in a state of original sin they will be deprived of the beatific vision. I am afraid that whether you agree with it or not this teaching is De Fide

Ludwig Ott in the ' Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma states 'Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De Fide)

The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:..... 'the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different)

The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God"

The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem) Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (Vicarious baptism of desire- Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire- H.Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (Baptism of suffering - H.Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. C.f. D712

In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the " poena damni" which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific vision of God, and the " poena sensus" which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the Resurrection of the body. While St Augustine and many Latin fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the Greek Fathers (for example, St Gregory of Nazianus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only. The declaration of Pope innocent III, is in favour of this teaching, D. 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with "Poena damni". Cf. St Thomas, De Malo, 5,3 ; Sent. II d. 33q.2.a.2

Theologians usually assume a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the synod of Pistoia.
' P 113-114


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - TrentCath - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 10:38 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 10:23 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Sometimes that is how it feels in these discussions.

Sort of the like the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which, it at least seems to me, is often denied as a point in the face of the declaration, but it really completely in harmony with the lex orandi of the Orthodox.

They deny it because they think we believe Mary was preserved from the guilt of Adam's sin, as if the rest of us weren't.

They deny it because they think mary was preserved from original sin, that is from inheriting it, something we clearly aren't. You are simply not making the difference between personal guilt as from personal sins and the guilt so to speak of original sin.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 10:58 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Just no, you haven't read the documents.

Lets look at it again shall we '2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. '

It's quite clear then that original sin is not death alone, now if you don't accept the Council of Trent then quite obviously this won't serve as evidence to you but what you can't is twist the plain and ordinary meaning of the text in order to deny that it censures the opinion you hold.

As for believing the vulgate is wrong 'Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. ' (Council of Trent)

Again if you are not Catholic it does not serve as evidence, if you are it is sufficient to show what the Catholic teaching is.

Again, I haven't stated that original sin IS death.  I have said death is Adam's curse.  If Trent and the Bible contradict eachother, then Trent is wrong, not the Bible.  I can't help it if Trent has said the Vulgate is error free, but it's not.  The Latin understanding of Original Sin is in part based upon a translation in the Vulgate that is not what the original Greek said.  The error pre-exists Trent, and so Trent's declaration does not undo the error, or somehow make a faleshood all of a sudden true.



Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - Melkite - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 11:12 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Wrong, no babies are guilty of any personal sin but they have still inherited original sin, as such if they die in a state of original sin they will be deprived of the beatific vision. I am afraid that whether you agree with it or not this teaching is De Fide
Ludwig Ott in the ' Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma states 'Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De Fide)
The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:..... 'the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different)
The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God"
The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem) Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (Vicarious baptism of desire- Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire- H.Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (Baptism of suffering - H.Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. C.f. D712
In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the " poena damni" which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific vision of God, and the " poena sensus" which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the Resurrection of the body. While St Augustine and many Latin fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the Greek Fathers (for example, St Gregory of Nazianus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only. The declaration of Pope innocent III, is in favour of this teaching, D. 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with "Poena damni". Cf. St Thomas, De Malo, 5,3 ; Sent. II d. 33q.2.a.2
Theologians usually assume a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the synod of Pistoia.
' P 113-114

You should go back and re-read what I wrote.  I didn't say the unbaptized can enter heaven.  It is you who fail to differentiate between circumstance and guilt.  Infants are not guilty of ANY sin.  They are not guilty of any personal sin, and the inheritance of original sin carries no guilt with it.  God, however, does not owe heaven to anyone, so if a baby is not unbaptized and dies, he is not owed heaven merely because he has no personal guilt.  If I don't owe you something, then it is not a punishment to you if I do not give you what I do not owe you.  Therefore, the loss of heaven for original sin only is not a punishment per se, just the circumstances of a fact, that the child died without baptism, without entering the ark.  He has suffered the illness of fallen humanity, but is not personally guilty of it.  This is why many of the early fathers referred to the Eucharist as the medicine of immortality.  We are born into a diseases state.  We are baptised, thereby entering the ark of salvation, and are able to receive the medicine that heals our fallen nature and makes heaven possible for us.  We do not receive a punishment for being born into a diseases state over which we had no choice.  Hell is a punishment, or, in your terms, poena sensus.  Merely failing to attain heaven, in and of itself, is not a punishment.


Re: next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182 - newyorkcatholic - 02-03-2012

(02-03-2012, 12:50 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 11:12 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Wrong, no babies are guilty of any personal sin but they have still inherited original sin, as such if they die in a state of original sin they will be deprived of the beatific vision. I am afraid that whether you agree with it or not this teaching is De Fide
Ludwig Ott in the ' Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma states 'Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De Fide)
The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:..... 'the souls of those who die in original sin as well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell, but their punishment is very different)
The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God"
The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by blood of the children of Bethlehem) Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and desire of the parents or the Church (Vicarious baptism of desire- Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire- H.Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (Baptism of suffering - H.Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. C.f. D712
In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the " poena damni" which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific vision of God, and the " poena sensus" which is caused by external means, and which will be felt by the senses even after the Resurrection of the body. While St Augustine and many Latin fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the Greek Fathers (for example, St Gregory of Nazianus, Or. 40, 23), and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only. The declaration of Pope innocent III, is in favour of this teaching, D. 410. A condition of natural bliss is compatible with "Poena damni". Cf. St Thomas, De Malo, 5,3 ; Sent. II d. 33q.2.a.2
Theologians usually assume a special place or state for children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum (children's limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the synod of Pistoia.
' P 113-114

You should go back and re-read what I wrote.  I didn't say the unbaptized can enter heaven.  It is you who fail to differentiate between circumstance and guilt.  Infants are not guilty of ANY sin.  They are not guilty of any personal sin, and the inheritance of original sin carries no guilt with it.  God, however, does not owe heaven to anyone, so if a baby is not unbaptized and dies, he is not owed heaven merely because he has no personal guilt.  If I don't owe you something, then it is not a punishment to you if I do not give you what I do not owe you.  Therefore, the loss of heaven for original sin only is not a punishment per se, just the circumstances of a fact, that the child died without baptism, without entering the ark.  He has suffered the illness of fallen humanity, but is not personally guilty of it.  This is why many of the early fathers referred to the Eucharist as the medicine of immortality.  We are born into a diseases state.  We are baptised, thereby entering the ark of salvation, and are able to receive the medicine that heals our fallen nature and makes heaven possible for us.  We do not receive a punishment for being born into a diseases state over which we had no choice.  Hell is a punishment, or, in your terms, poena sensus.  Merely failing to attain heaven, in and of itself, is not a punishment.

I'm still having trouble seeing a difference between the Catholic and Orthodox views.  I wonder if the Orthodox mistakenly think Catholics equate the consequences of original sin with a personal guilt?  But we don't.

A practical consequence of Our Lady's immaculate conception was not, for example, that she was born without personal guilt, because that's true of all of us.  But she was also born free from concupiscence, which is not true of the rest of us!