next time Eastern Orthodox complain of 1204, remind them of 1182
#21
(02-03-2012, 06:27 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 06:25 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Let's not be ridiculous.

Huh?

"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."
Reply
#22
(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.

Huh?

"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."

Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?

I'm sure this means something but...?
Reply
#23
(02-03-2012, 06:06 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Scratching head

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
Reply
#24
(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.

Huh?

"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."

Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh?

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

"another remnant of alchemical twaddle
that ceases to be twaddle in some cases"
Reply
#25
(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.
Reply
#26
(02-03-2012, 12:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

Death.

That's part of it, but do the Orthodox really have no sense that baptism "rights" something "wrong" even if they don't call it "original sin"? 
Reply
#27
(02-03-2012, 09:59 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

Death.

That's part of it, but do the Orthodox really have no sense that baptism "rights" something "wrong" even if they don't call it "original sin"? 

Sort of yes and sort of no.  Baptism is what makes one a member of the Church, just as circumcision is what made (males, anyway) a member of the Jewish people.  You can't receive the sacraments without baptism.  So, for the Orthodox, baptism is kind of like your boarding ticket onto the Ark.  You're not guilty of the sin yourself, but you're still not gonna be saved from the flood if you're not on the boat when it starts raining.  Baptism is not in any way looked at as forgiveness of guilt from original sin.  It forgives actual sins for adults being baptized, but for infants, it is merely entrance into the Church.

Scratch that last part.  It's not *merely* entrance into the Church for baptism.  Infants still are born with a defective body, baptism allows them to receive the sacraments that will heal the defect on their soul.
Reply
#28
(02-03-2012, 09:59 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

Death.

That's part of it, but do the Orthodox really have no sense that baptism "rights" something "wrong" even if they don't call it "original sin"? 

They haven't ever since the Roman Catholic Church asserts it does.
Reply
#29
(02-03-2012, 10:20 AM)MiradoBlackWarrior Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 09:59 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 12:13 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-02-2012, 03:19 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: what is Adam's Curse if not original sin?

Death.

That's part of it, but do the Orthodox really have no sense that baptism "rights" something "wrong" even if they don't call it "original sin"? 

They haven't ever since the Roman Catholic Church asserts it does.

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.
Reply
#30
(02-03-2012, 09:36 AM)Melkite Wrote: "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.

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?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)