St Hermenegild
#11
(04-14-2010, 05:50 AM)glgas Wrote:
(04-14-2010, 01:58 AM)WanderingPenitent Wrote: I never implied that the Arians were not believing themselves to be "traditional." Just that calling them "traditionalists of their time" is a bit misleading since the Nicenes were just as devoted to the same concept of holding to their traditions and, what they believed to be older and more "traditional" doctrine.

I learned in depth abouth the Niceanum in the time when John XXIII called Vatican II. Both my History and Patristic teachers pointed out the similarity between the Niceanum and Vatican II, in the sense that the fathers of Niceanum were innovators, as John XXIII planned Vatican II as something new. (This was before the council started) New was the concept of the Ecumenical council (that was the first) and new was the concept of the nature (ousia) and person (hypostasis) applied to God, the Trinity and Incarnation.These concept were coming from the classical Greek philosophy, not from the Scriptures or Christian oral tradition.

Naturally it is possible that they were wrong, but please prove it quoting the pre-nicean Fathers.

are you talking about your teachers in seminary, lazlo?


Reply
#12
(04-14-2010, 09:42 AM)i.p.i. Wrote: are you talking about your teachers in seminary, lazlo?

Yes
Reply
#13
(04-14-2010, 09:33 AM)WanderingPenitent Wrote: The Epistles of St. John and the 1st Chapter of the Gospel of John do not strike me as an "innovation from Greek Philosophy." The Nicene Council may have used Greek philosophy to explain it, but not to map it out as something new, nor did they see it as something new and innovative the way John XXIII saw Vatican II.

"For we profess Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to the Greeks."

Ther concept of the Holy Trinity and incarnation is well defined and described in the Scriptures. However the usage of the concept 'nature' and 'person'  is new. The Fathers of the Niceneum did not invented the mysteries of Trinity and Incarnation, only re-verbalized it beyond the that time traditional terminologies (Son of God, Logos) what seemed to be in contradiction with the One-ness of God. The Arians rejected it in the name of the tradition with vehemency, like some speakers here reject the Vatican II Ecumenical council, and the decisions of the recent popes claiming the tradition.  The Arians too believed that they can distinguish good and bad. We now know for sure, that they were wrong, the Church survived them. and everybody accepts the that time new theological  terms: nature and person.

The moral is that the depository of the truth is the living Magisterium, and not selected pieces from the frozen tradition.
Reply
#14
But that's my point. The Arians rejected the notion in the name of tradition, while the Nicenes supported it in the name of tradition as well. It was not that one agreed with tradition and the other rejected tradition. Both fully believed they were honoring tradition but disagreed on what "tradition" actually said.

Tradition means, as Chesterton would put it, to honor the voices of our ancestors. The reason why modern "Traditionalists" can be considered that is because the Modern Church at large only listens to what they want to hear from their ancestors, and thus do not even like the idea of tradition.

At the time of the Arian controversy, neither was rejecting the voice of their ancestors and fore fathers, they just disagreed on what those whom had proceeded them were saying. They were both traditionalists.
Reply
#15
From my Missal;

St. Hermengild, Martyr:

St. Hermengild was the son of an Arian King of the Visigoths in Spain. He was put to death for refusing to receive Holy Communion from an Heretical bishop in 586.


Hmmmm, seems the NO folks should study St. Hermengild.

Reply
#16
(04-14-2010, 03:29 PM)WanderingPenitent Wrote: But that's my point. The Arians rejected the notion in the name of tradition, while the Nicenes supported it in the name of tradition as well. It was not that one agreed with tradition and the other rejected tradition. Both fully believed they were honoring tradition but disagreed on what "tradition" actually said.

In the Denzinger the word 'tradition' comes up first in the 5th Century, interestingly in confirming the indisputable power of the Apostolic See (#100, #109 in the English).

The Nicene fathers represented the  living Church which has the right to bind and lose, to open and close, and thus introduced in their time not new liturgy to assure the active participation, but new concepts and words to understand the mysteries of the Christian doctrine.

Naturally the did not changed the teaching and practice of Jesus Christ, but were not affraid to give new clothes to it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)