When was original sin removed from OT saints?
#21
(07-23-2012, 05:41 PM)Melkite Wrote: I disagree with this, not because I disagree with Thomism on certain points, but because it singles out one person as basically being the summit of Catholic truth.  He very much is just another saint/theologian.  I think to put him on such a pedestal as the West does, and not merely acknowledging that he was more gifted than other theologians in many ways, but putting him on an entirely different level to the exclusion of all other theologians, is in a certain sense idolatrous.  You're basically saying all other theologians are deserving of an academic type of dulia, but Aquinas alone deserves academic hyperdulia.

Do you know who Euclid and Isaac Newton are?

They are men, smart men, who wrote or devised systems of science (geometry for Euclid, classical mechanics for Newton).

There work was not their own. They were building on a store of knowledge and historical achievements and they are the ones who put them together into one work, into one system, and made it a single thing to study. To this day, we refer to Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics and they are the systems we generally use on earth.

St. Thomas is like them. He is not the be all end all of study, however, his work was a single coherent systematic study of sacred doctrine. Just as humans are body and spirit, we can apply reason to what is revealed.

Euclid had "errors", Newton had "errors", but they were trivial, understandable in light of available technology at the time, to the extent that most additions to their work is not just a "correction", but an addition to make their work more generally applicable (ie, non-euclidean geometry is consistent with the work of Euclid because it only violates on non-proven postulate). Einstein devised special relativity and this completes Newtonian physics.

The esteem for St. Thomas as a theologian (he was more than that too remember) is in the special place he holds in applying reason to revelation.

To what end is this useful? It is useful for those who intellectually attack the Church. Atheists, heretics of all kinds, and other religions can see that the teachings of the Church are not some fantasy, but actually consistent with human intellectual understanding even though God Himself cannot be understood! It is good for study for those who have intellectual callings who need to fill those gaps. It is good for avoiding error and understanding truth. It is good for understanding the effects of sin on man and what man is.

This is not for everybody and all circumstances, but on theological discussions online, I think you and all would do well to be familiar with the most comprehensive and complete theology we have to study.

Yes, he wrote in Latin. So have it translated to Greek (or whatever). The Latins translated John Cassian without issue or qualms.
Reply
#22
(07-23-2012, 06:22 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Do you know who Euclid and Isaac Newton are?

They are men, smart men, who wrote or devised systems of science (geometry for Euclid, classical mechanics for Newton).

There work was not their own. They were building on a store of knowledge and historical achievements and they are the ones who put them together into one work, into one system, and made it a single thing to study. To this day, we refer to Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics and they are the systems we generally use on earth.

St. Thomas is like them. He is not the be all end all of study, however, his work was a single coherent systematic study of sacred doctrine. Just as humans are body and spirit, we can apply reason to what is revealed.

Euclid had "errors", Newton had "errors", but they were trivial, understandable in light of available technology at the time, to the extent that most additions to their work is not just a "correction", but an addition to make their work more generally applicable (ie, non-euclidean geometry is consistent with the work of Euclid because it only violates on non-proven postulate). Einstein devised special relativity and this completes Newtonian physics.

The esteem for St. Thomas as a theologian (he was more than that too remember) is in the special place he holds in applying reason to revelation.

To what end is this useful? It is useful for those who intellectually attack the Church. Atheists, heretics of all kinds, and other religions can see that the teachings of the Church are not some fantasy, but actually consistent with human intellectual understanding even though God Himself cannot be understood! It is good for study for those who have intellectual callings who need to fill those gaps. It is good for avoiding error and understanding truth. It is good for understanding the effects of sin on man and what man is.

This is not for everybody and all circumstances, but on theological discussions online, I think you and all would do well to be familiar with the most comprehensive and complete theology we have to study.

Yes, he wrote in Latin. So have it translated to Greek (or whatever). The Latins translated John Cassian without issue or qualms.

I get your point and think it would actually be a good one if theology was something that could be proven.  Euclid and Newton came up with mathematical and scientific rules that have stuck and been proven to be correct.  They're can be replicated.  You can't do that with theology, you either believe it is true or you don't.  It would be easier to prove that there was a black hole inside every cruise ship in the Caribbean than it would be to prove God instituted circumcision and that it actually has any effect on original sin.

I can appreciate the idea of having one huge collection of theology so students have one source to go to, but theology doesn't work like that.  Aquinas is a scholastic.  Scholastic theology doesn't work for everybody, and just translating it into Greek won't remove a particular thought process that the theology is dependent upon.
Reply
#23
(07-23-2012, 10:35 PM)Melkite Wrote: I get your point and think it would actually be a good one if theology was something that could be proven.  Euclid and Newton came up with mathematical and scientific rules that have stuck and been proven to be correct.  They're can be replicated.  You can't do that with theology, you either believe it is true or you don't.  It would be easier to prove that there was a black hole inside every cruise ship in the Caribbean than it would be to prove God instituted circumcision and that it actually has any effect on original sin.

I can appreciate the idea of having one huge collection of theology so students have one source to go to, but theology doesn't work like that.  Aquinas is a scholastic.  Scholastic theology doesn't work for everybody, and just translating it into Greek won't remove a particular thought process that the theology is dependent upon.

Reason isn't always about mathematical proof. Don't you reason about Scripture (which theology is based on)?  Why do you argue in this forum?  Don't you think some arguments are better than others, and more worth remembering?  Are truths about religion just "whatever works", whatever appeals to you? Is it all just subjective?

We can reject reasoning about Catholic truths just because "it doesn't work for us",  but then we aren't using our greatest gift, our intellect, as God meant us to use it.  St. Thomas - and other good theologians - are using that gift.  Of course they are not infallible.  But we do wisely to build on their thinking, not throw it away whenever it does not appeal to us.  Surely that is what God wants.

Reply
#24
Isiah was purified when the angel placed a firey coal to his lips. Enoch walked with god and Elijah was taken up by a firey chariot. I don't know if their original sin was removed. Everybody elses' original sin was removed with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Reply
#25
(07-23-2012, 10:35 PM)Melkite Wrote: I get your point and think it would actually be a good one if theology was something that could be proven.

  Euclid and Newton came up with mathematical and scientific rules that have stuck and been proven to be correct. 
No they did not ;)

Euclid made up five rules (at least) which are axiomatic. They cannot be proven. In fact, one is random (Fifth Postulate).

Geometric proofs rely on this axioms to prove things. The axioms themselves are more or less self evident and taken on authority.

There are other geometries which are not Euclidean and just as valid.

Quote:They're can be replicated.  You can't do that with theology, you either believe it is true or you don't.  It would be easier to prove that there was a black hole inside every cruise ship in the Caribbean than it would be to prove God instituted circumcision and that it actually has any effect on original sin.
You can do it with theology. St. Thomas clearly states that the "proof" is done a posteriori.

Quote:I can appreciate the idea of having one huge collection of theology so students have one source to go to, but theology doesn't work like that.  Aquinas is a scholastic.  Scholastic theology doesn't work for everybody, and just translating it into Greek won't remove a particular thought process that the theology is dependent upon.
Studying theology is not for everybody, but scholastic theology "works" for everybody unless you are saying that any science can be found not to "work" for everybody. It is a matter of truth.

Translation and cultural understanding can be a big hindrance to understanding precise words of another. The Chinese for example do not have a native word for "God" which caused some headaches for the first missionaries (Chinese religious beliefs did not include a personal being of supreme power of any kind, so one was stuck with impersonal terms). But they managed to get the idea which was previously foreign to them.

Anybody who learns of the Trinity has to deal with terms and matters of truth which take more effort. This is what theology is for.
Reply
#26
(07-20-2012, 08:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: Aquinas was wrong about the immaculate conception, he is wrong about this as well.  He may be a very esteemed teacher, but there is no need to immediately presume he is basically infallible, when there is a more reasonable answer to a given question.  In this case, certainly it makes no sense that the faith of OT women alone saved them, but circumcision was necessary for females.  It was merely a symbol of baptism.  No cleansing took place by the circumcision itself.  This is readily apparent.

First, no reasonable person, let alone a good Thomist, would ever suggest that the Universal Doctor's knowledge amounted to an infallible or near-infallible theological cathedra. Yet, given his repute Universal Doctor, and that the Summa Theologica was the backbone of theological formation for the better part of three-quarter of a millennium, one had better be very well studied or have good reason to depart from St. Thomas' opinion. Generally, a layman, not trained in theology should avoid making any departure.

Secondly, St. Thomas was not "wrong" about the Immaculate Conception, at least not any more than most other major theologians of his era, like St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard, St. Anselm, Peter Lombard, etc. St. Thomas (ST III, q.27, a.1-2) treats the idea of Mary's Immaculate Conception ... but only in conjunction with fighting those who would say that therefore Mary was not in need of the Redemption. It is clear that St. Thomas taught and believed that Mary bore the debt due to Original Sin (for which she was redeemed by Christ ahead of His sacrifice), but not the stain. He seems to suggest that, like St. John the Baptist, she was purified in the womb at some point. Much of this is likely due to the mistaken idea that the body was formed before the soul was implanted, and since sin is not in the body, but in the soul, it was not until at least the implantation of the soul (the "creation" of this new soul) that there could be any cleansing from sin.

So there is an error here in St. Thomas' thinking, but it is not as if he saw the Immaculate Conception as impossible. He simply saw it as impossible, given his mistaken understanding of nature and generation. In fact, he effectively admits the principles behind the Immaculate Conception (Redemption of Our Lady, and he freedom from Sin).
Reply
#27
(07-19-2012, 11:59 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 08:07 AM)symphony8 Wrote: I always thought it was when Christ preached to those in hell  ???

Close - -I was taught this is where they all were baptized.

Sacraments are for the living ... the Church has no power or jurisdiction over the dead. Thus, Sacraments do not avail for the dead.

This is why when a person has apparently died, but decay has not obviously set in, the priest can administer Extreme Unction and even give Absolution, but only conditionally ... this condition being "If you be living ...". For one unbaptized who has apparently died, baptism could also be given conditionally. The whole reason for the condition is that the sacrament has no effect on the dead, and thus, without the condition, if truly dead (boday and soul are separated), then the priest commits a sacrilege.

So, the souls in the Limbo of the Fathers could not have been sacramentally baptized ... the divine mandate to baptize (and thus the Sacrament) did not yet exist and none of the souls in Limbo were united to their bodies, so could not have received the sacrament of baptism.

They were sanctified by their faith ... and for many the sign of that faith was circumcision ... but it was not like a Sacrament (working by the mere act itself), but a non-infallible sign of the grace conferred.
Reply
#28
(07-23-2012, 05:41 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-23-2012, 12:38 PM)Walty Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 08:45 AM)Rosarium Wrote: Aquinas was not "wrong" as much as you think.

This is very important, I think.  He's not just another saint/theologian.  He holds a singular and extraordinary place in the Church, and is the Angelic Doctor, the chief of all theologians, and the school (though there are no schools comparable in scope to his own) which has been accepted and promoted by the Church above all others.

I disagree with this, not because I disagree with Thomism on certain points, but because it singles out one person as basically being the summit of Catholic truth.  He very much is just another saint/theologian.  I think to put him on such a pedestal as the West does, and not merely acknowledging that he was more gifted than other theologians in many ways, but putting him on an entirely different level to the exclusion of all other theologians, is in a certain sense idolatrous.  You're basically saying all other theologians are deserving of an academic type of dulia, but Aquinas alone deserves academic hyperdulia.

For you Melkite, but the Catholic faith never has had much time for mere opinions to the exclusion of facts and especially when they are opposed to the Church's teaching, like it or not the Church herself has set him apart from all other theologians and put him on a pedestal, I don't see why you continue regurtiating this same old grudge over and over again, do you have a chip on your shoulder or something?

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)