Why the Mass in Latin?
#81
(06-16-2011, 01:47 PM)Melkite Wrote: Pot, kettle, as usual vetus.

It absolutely has to do with east and west.  It was never necessary to define when the consecration takes place in the east, so rather than explaining why the west needed to define it despite the east being a living proof the west's concerns were unnecessary, you dodge the question and accuse the east of schismatic mentality.
It does matter, and the reasons have been given. Just because the East did not define it does not mean the West is wrong in defining it. The church has defined it, and it is truth.
Quote:It doesn't matter if the filioque is true or not.
 
It does very much matter, as it is part of the creed. If it didn't matter Mark of Ephesus would have accepted the decrees of the Council of Florence.
Quote:Some truths are not prudent to make binding on all the faithful.  The filioque was, and still is.  Why isn't it binding yet on all the faithful to believe that the Theotokos is co-redemptrix, mediatrix and advocate?  There is certainly nothing untrue about it, and yet the Church has determined it is imprudent to define it right now.  Why did the Pope have the creed posted in Greek and Latin without the filioque?  The only reason it was defined by Rome was because Rome was suffering from the same imperial and ecclesiastical pride as that of Constantinople, the epitome of which Constantinople could not hold since Rome retained that title as well.
No, it was defined to combat heresy. Photius and Mark of Ephesus were the ones suffering from pride, and led their church astray.
Quote:Look at yourself.  You're like the people of Westboro baptist who loves to proclaim that God hates fags, and when people are repulsed by their hatred, they accuse them of being enemies of God, rather than take any personal responsibility for their lack of charity.  You are a Catholic and are BOUND to profess the truth in charity.  You have shown yourself to be completely lacking in charity because of your own sinful arrogance and continue to refuse any responsibility for your own actions.  It's downright immature and not fitting of the Catholic you claim yourself to be.
He was not being arrogant, he was trying to show what the Church has defined, and that their is no denying it. You can't make up your own interpretations of things. What has been defined is defined. You don't really have a right to say he is lacking in charity.
Reply
#82
(06-16-2011, 02:01 PM)K3vinhood Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 01:47 PM)Melkite Wrote: It doesn't matter if the filioque is true or not.
 
It does very much matter, as it is part of the creed. If it didn't matter Mark of Ephesus would have accepted the decrees of the Council of Florence.

I meant that it does not matter in the context of defining it.  Its truth doesn't mean that it absolutely needs to be defined as such or that it is prudent to do so at a given time.
Reply
#83
(06-16-2011, 12:27 PM)Melkite Wrote: But the Orthodox don't leave everything undefined.  The Orthodox (granted, while they were still Catholic) have defined that Christ is both God and man, not just God or just man.  It's defined that Christ really died on the cross and rose from the dead, it's defined that Christ really is one person, has two wills and has defined that iconography is permissable and good.  Do you see a connection to these?  They all have to do with God's relationship with Creation.  We can know about that relationship.  The procession of the Holy Spirit pertains to the internal relationship of the Trinity, something that we shall never know, never see, never understand.  Defining a point about something that humans are capable of knowing and then placing the penalty of eternal damnation on it is kind of like saying one will lose their salvation if they don't profess predestination and also profess WHY God predestines.  It's kind of nonsensical.

How is defining that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father"--as the Nicaea I and Constantinople I did--not about the internal relationship of the Trinity, but defining that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son"--as Lyons II and Florence did--is?
Reply
#84
Why are we arguing about the Filioque? Both Roman and Eastern Catholics believe in the same creed, but just express it slightly different.  This has been such a decisive issue, but  its status is settled.  To bring it up this issue only serves to disrupt our Catholic community. 

Reply
#85
(06-16-2011, 11:34 AM)Melkite Wrote: It is.  I'm just saying I don't understand why it was absolutely necessary to define it in the West when the East was doing just fine to let it remain a mystery.  Didn't the West ever have the concept of only defining what was necessary for salvation and letting the rest remain debatable?

The real cause of the Eastern Orthodox not defining matters has more to do with intellectual stagnation anything. "Letting it remain a mystery" is just an excuse for a lack of philosophical and theological inquiry.

In the first few centuries, most of the controversies and councils took place in the East because that's where the intellectual life of the Empire was centered. In the Middle Ages, though, the center of theological debate and discussion shifted to the West, where the universities were.

If the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea had wanted to, they could have said "true God from true God" was sufficient to describe Who Christ is. But they didn't stop there, they went on to explain how  Christ is true God, by saying that He is homoousios to the Father. Eastern polemicists often mention how it is unnecessary to discuss the hows of Christ's presence in the Eucharist; "leave it to mystery" is their battle cry. But the only difference between what the Patristic Doctors did and what the Scholastic Doctors did was that the former did it in the East but the latter did it in the West.  
Reply
#86
(06-16-2011, 07:07 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 11:34 AM)Melkite Wrote: It is.  I'm just saying I don't understand why it was absolutely necessary to define it in the West when the East was doing just fine to let it remain a mystery.  Didn't the West ever have the concept of only defining what was necessary for salvation and letting the rest remain debatable?

The real cause of the Eastern Orthodox not defining matters has more to do with intellectual stagnation anything. "Letting it remain a mystery" is just an excuse for a lack of philosophical and theological inquiry.

In the first few centuries, most of the controversies and councils took place in the East because that's where the intellectual life of the Empire was centered. In the Middle Ages, though, the center of theological debate and discussion shifted to the West, where the universities were.

If the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea had wanted to, they could have said "true God from true God" was sufficient to describe Who Christ is. But they didn't stop there, they went on to explain how  Christ is true God, by saying that He is homoousios to the Father. Eastern polemicists often mention how it is unnecessary to discuss the hows of Christ's presence in the Eucharist; "leave it to mystery" is their battle cry. But the only difference between what the Patristic Doctors did and what the Scholastic Doctors did was that the former did it in the East but the latter did it in the West.  

All good points.  I give up, I've been rebellious without recognizing it.  I accept everything the Church teaches, even if I don't understand why it teaches it.  Please pray for me.
Reply
#87
I'll spare a latinist Ave for you, Melkite.

Trust in God, He won't fail you.
Reply
#88
(06-16-2011, 09:46 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: I'll spare a latinist Ave for you, Melkite.

Trust in God, He won't fail you.

Seconded.

:pray:

Melkite, I admire your humility, sometimes it's better to take a break from the theology and just relax and pray. Don't worry so much about things like the filioque or whether certain Easterners are saints or not.
Reply
#89
(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*
Reply
#90
(06-16-2011, 09:43 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 07:07 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(06-16-2011, 11:34 AM)Melkite Wrote: It is.  I'm just saying I don't understand why it was absolutely necessary to define it in the West when the East was doing just fine to let it remain a mystery.  Didn't the West ever have the concept of only defining what was necessary for salvation and letting the rest remain debatable?

The real cause of the Eastern Orthodox not defining matters has more to do with intellectual stagnation anything. "Letting it remain a mystery" is just an excuse for a lack of philosophical and theological inquiry.

In the first few centuries, most of the controversies and councils took place in the East because that's where the intellectual life of the Empire was centered. In the Middle Ages, though, the center of theological debate and discussion shifted to the West, where the universities were.

If the Fathers of the First Council of Nicaea had wanted to, they could have said "true God from true God" was sufficient to describe Who Christ is. But they didn't stop there, they went on to explain how  Christ is true God, by saying that He is homoousios to the Father. Eastern polemicists often mention how it is unnecessary to discuss the hows of Christ's presence in the Eucharist; "leave it to mystery" is their battle cry. But the only difference between what the Patristic Doctors did and what the Scholastic Doctors did was that the former did it in the East but the latter did it in the West.  

All good points.  I give up, I've been rebellious without recognizing it.  I accept everything the Church teaches, even if I don't understand why it teaches it.  Please pray for me.

I echo what Vetus said above. :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)