Why the Mass in Latin?
#91
Pssst....I think Melkite was being sarcastic. 
Reply
#92
(06-17-2011, 12:23 AM)Marc Wrote:
(06-15-2011, 12:47 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: How was Palamas a heretic? He denied absolute divine simplicity. See Lateran IV for details. In addition, he died out of communion with the Catholic Church. How can someone who rejected Christ's Church be venerated as a saint?
Quote:"If Palamas Is A Saint, Then Let Him Drown Us"

[Image: 74387131.jpg]

Once in Thera (Santorini), on the day of the commemoration of Saint Gregory Palamas, which was the Second Sunday of the Great Fast, some Latins were sailing on a certain boat for recreation. They placed their children on a separate boat, who then began to clap their hands saying: "Anathema to Palamas! If Palamas is a Saint, then let him drown us." With such things were the little Franks blaspheming, and O the strange wonder, my brethren! O the Saintliness and the boldness before God of divine Gregory! At the same time as they were uttering their blasphemies, without a single disturbance of the waters, and in calm weather, the boat sunk together with all those who were in it. This happened for the blasphemy they uttered, saying: "If he is a Saint, let him drown us." And while the bodies of the blasphemers sunk in the ocean, their profane souls sunk into the eternal fires of hell, confirming the sainthood of divine Gregory.

- Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1660-1669)

*snickers*

Good on those Latins! Satan was probably the one who sunk the ship.*

*JK. TBH, I'd bet this story was completely fabricated, like many things contained in legends of venerated figures.
Reply
#93
Aside from Nektarios stupidity the Palamas issue carries no water with me as the Orthodox can do whatever they want with their local "heroes" they do not process infallibility hence they are not subject to the know weather he is nor not a saint.

The most serious question is of Vetus which I am afraid to say he seems to be engaging in latinism, in my mind at least I am sorry to say. Vetus should know perfectly well that the East does not like defining things, it is not their way you know that very well. And as long as the Orthodox remain apart from us there should not be any reason to try and force the East to agree with us on everything. That is the job of a council and as long as there is no unity there can be no council and vice versa.
Reply
#94
(06-17-2011, 12:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pssst....I think Melkite was being sarcastic.   

No, I wasn't. :)
Reply
#95
(06-17-2011, 06:33 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-17-2011, 12:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pssst....I think Melkite was being sarcastic.   

No, I wasn't. :)

Oh...so what was settled then?
Reply
#96
(06-17-2011, 06:57 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-17-2011, 06:33 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-17-2011, 12:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pssst....I think Melkite was being sarcastic.   

No, I wasn't. :)

Oh...so what was settled then?

Nothing.  But it doesn't have to be settled.  I'm not a theologian, and the Church doesn't require me to understand doctrine in order to accept it.
Reply
#97
(06-17-2011, 12:50 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: The most serious question is of Vetus which I am afraid to say he seems to be engaging in latinism, in my mind at least I am sorry to say. Vetus should know perfectly well that the East does not like defining things, it is not their way you know that very well.

So the Church's first Ecumenical Councils in the East that defined the consubstantiality of the Son to the Father or the Divine Motherhood of Mary weren't really defining anything. They just got together to play cards and throw some anathemas around.

That must be the way of the East. Silly me.

Quote:And as long as the Orthodox remain apart from us there should not be any reason to try and force the East to agree with us on everything. That is the job of a council and as long as there is no unity there can be no council and vice versa.

This doesn't even begin to make sense, unless you're being sarcastic.
Reply
#98
(06-17-2011, 08:46 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-17-2011, 06:57 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(06-17-2011, 06:33 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-17-2011, 12:33 AM)Someone1776 Wrote: Pssst....I think Melkite was being sarcastic.   

No, I wasn't. :)

Oh...so what was settled then?

Nothing.  But it doesn't have to be settled.  I'm not a theologian, and the Church doesn't require me to understand doctrine in order to accept it.

In part, I remembered a recurring thought that I have, which is that if the Church is not competent to define for me the eternal qualities of the Trinity, then I most definitely can not claim to define it on my own.  The Church is the only one able to define it for man, and if the Church can't define it, it is undefinable, without a direct revelation from God.  I just wish I could remember that more immediately when these issues come up.
Reply
#99
I'd also like to apologise for some harsher words, Melkite.

I often let my inadequacies get the better of me in the middle of discussions. You are my brother in Christ; forgive me for any hurt or potential scandal that I have caused you.
Reply
(06-17-2011, 03:44 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I'd also like to apologise for some harsher words, Melkite.

I often let my inadequacies get the better of me in the middle of discussions. You are my brother in Christ; forgive me for any hurt or potential scandal that I have caused you.

Thank you, I appreciate that.  I forgive you, and please forgive me for my equally harsh and perhaps less warranted words toward you.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)