Can we discuss the differences between Latin and Greek theology? Specifically when it comes to concepts such as satisfaction, merit, penance, sin, purgatory, imputed justification, infused grace/righteousness, sanctification, and etc. How do Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox differ in their interpretation about scripture on these issues?
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
>Specifically when it comes to concepts such as satisfaction, merit, penance, sin, purgatory
The Latin Tradition holds to a doctrine of predestination and that works are involved in sanctification but salvation is not “earned”, how I’m still unclear.
Eastern Orthodox are semi-pelegians at minimum and some are full-pelegians, really ridding that line between the two. However, Eastern Orthodox have no actual soteriology. The major difference between the Latin West and Greek East is Catholics have systematic theology, the Greek East don’t, just vague appeals to mystery even about central topics like Baptism or Salvation.
Asking “what does EO say on X topic?” is pointless, unless it’s about Icons.
>However, Eastern Orthodox have no actual soteriology. The major difference between the Latin West and Greek East is Catholics have systematic theology, the Greek East don’t, just vague appeals to mystery even about central topics like Baptism or Salvation.
Yeah I guess that's true. I have heard this is because Eastern Orthodox have a completely different understanding about reason and faith as opposed to the west, and this might even be rooted in differences about the filioque somehow though I'm not quite sure how true that is.
>The Latin Tradition holds to a doctrine of predestination and that works are involved in sanctification but salvation is not “earned”, how I’m still unclear.
Yes there seems to be a strange dialect involved in the historic Roman Catholic view. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
>Although the doctrine of modern Protestantism continues obscure and indefinite, it teaches generally speaking that good works are a spontaneous consequence of justifying faith, without being of any avail for life eternal. Apart from earlier dogmatic declarations given in the Second Synod of Orange of 529 and in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (see Denzinger, 191, 430), the Council of Trent upheld the traditional doctrine of merit by insisting that life everlasting is both a grace and a reward (Sess. VI, cap. xvi, in Denzinger, n. 809). It condemned as heretical Luther's doctrine of the sinfulness of good works (Sess. VI, can. xxv), and declared as a dogma that the just, in return for their good works done in God through the merits of Jesus Christ, should expect an eternal reward (loc. cit., can. xxvi).
>I have heard this is because Eastern Orthodox have a completely different understanding about reason and faith
I’ve heard that, but I think it’s mostly just a cope to keep themselves a moving target so it’s harder to nail them down for critique.
>and this might even be rooted in differences about the filioque somehow
They would probably cope with that because the blame the filioque for everything wrong in the world, but the fact they can’t agree on something as fundemental as baptism when other denominations have had it figured out since the the Reformatiom/Counter-Reformation shows the problem with rejection of systematic theology.
>Yes there seems to be a strange dialect involved in the historic Roman Catholic view.
I just hold to view that faith alone is required for justification but sanctification occurs through cooperation with the Holy Spirit, ergo salvation as a whole is based on faith and works, but the justification, actually being saved is sola fide.
My sauce? I made it up. Also point 19 & 20 of the Joint Declaration of Justification.
I myself cannot in good conscience proclaim the formula of sola fide, though I know some Catholic apologists like Jimmy Akin have taken a sympathetic view toward it provided it is understood within the correct parameters.
The general Catholic viewpoint is that at baptism we are initially justified, which is entirely the work of God who imputes the righteousness of Christ to us. At the same time this regenerates us as "new creatures" thereby also infusing righteousness into us so that with the help of the sacraments and such we can continually grow in righteousness i.e. sanctification. In a purely logical sense then, in this process of sanctification, graces are merited insofar that the conditions of our reward depend on the type of work involved, but in the proper sense they are the application of Christ's work to our own work which overflow to us out of an abundance of grace in the first place, meaning they are truly our own work but solely as a result of our participation in Christ's work which we must choose to cooperate with being the result that when we are born again we are incorporated members of the body of Christ.
I was with you right up until you said the words
>graces are merited insofar that…….
Meriting grace by defintion makes it not grace.
Other than that here
>meaning they are truly our own work but solely as a result of our participation in Christ's work which we must choose to cooperate with……
I would just change “must choose to” to “must consent to”
And add in “such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.”
>Greek Fathers never had much concern for the intricacies of Paul's theology.
I think in reptrospect that’s was a mistake on their part. However in the course of time men did fill that gap so maybe it was just Gods will.
>but their deep concern was refuting the heresies of Gnosticism
A noble goal and something Christians should continue to battle against. Concepts like the toll houses I see as just a continuation of Gnosticism in the Eastern Churches arising from their focus on mysticism, oral “tradition” and lack of systematic theology.
The definition of merit is: "property of a good work which entitles the doer to receive a reward". A common Protestant misconception when Catholics speak about meriting supernatural rewards is that this means that Catholics believe we are earning it, but that's not what merit does, we don't earn merit and God's promise of reward to us is strictly one out of his own fidelity, not because he is bound to justice since he himself is justice. In the broadest possible sense salvation as a whole can be said to be a merit, the beatific vision is a reward, but these rewards are not earned by us, they are gifts.
Further there is a logical distinction between Christ's work of satisfaction on the cross and the merits he obtains by his work on the cross which are applied to our work, meritorious works being logically distinct from those of satisfaction, yet they are conjoined in the mystery of the cross, and subsequently in the works that Christians do. In this sense, insofar as we are free cooperating creatures with infused righteousness, the merit is our own, but properly speaking it's Christ merit applied to us.
>A noble goal and something Christians should continue to battle against. Concepts like the toll houses I see as just a continuation of Gnosticism in the Eastern Churches arising from their focus on mysticism, oral “tradition” and lack of systematic theology.
I agree. It's one of the reasons I avoided Eastern Orthodoxy. I can't get on board with Palamism, filioque rejection, and lack of developed doctrine. I still very much respect them as fellow Trinitarian siblings in Christ but their is so much lacking there.
>keep themselves a moving target so it’s harder to nail them down for critique.
EO have a habit of doing this with everything, including history, relying on the other person not being autistic enough to have the knowledge to know they’re mischaracterizing/lying.
Yep they especially do this when it comes to debating the Pope they'll cite the most obscure canons from a local council or something that they think contradict a Pope about something.
Greek Fathers never had much concern for the intricacies of Paul's theology. Justin Martyr never mentions him or quotes his epistles. This is probably because of his appropriation by the Marcionites.
Obviously they held him in high regard as an apostle and a saint, and therefore received his writings, but their concern with refuting Gnosticism made them more attached to the four canonical gospels rather than the Pauline epistles. One of them, Luke, was only tied to Paul secondarily, and specifically their Proto-Orthodox version of Luke in contrast to the Marcionite version of Luke, basically being their way of claiming Paul and his companions for themselves against the Marcionites and the Gnostics who made extensive use of Paul for themselves.
Contrary to popular belief Paul's actual theology didn't come to have much influence on the theology of the Church up until the Pelagian controversy which started with Augustine.
so basically you proved paul corrupted the message of Jesus... just accept the oneness of God already... all you need to do it make the recitation... lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh
Muhammad was a pedophile.
shut your fricking mouth xian... may Allah curse you!
Not an argument.
all xians ever talk about is paul never Jesus... you claim to follow Jesus but if you did you would be a muslim whereas paul founded xianism which is why your religion only ever talks about paul
You're wrong but what does that have to do with Mo being a kiddy diddler?
oh i wish you had said that in the lands of islam so you would get what you deserve there and i would happily watch you be punished... but Allah will punish you in the next life with fire so great in jahanam the believers will be laughing at you as you are in great pain [al mutaffifin 34 - 36] ... i cant wait to see you in misery as i am in paradise, you will see you will get what you deserve and you will regret it and Jesus will be laughing at you too and be a witness against you while you and paul burn...
Sad to know this is really how Muslims think. But what else can you expect from a cult started by a 7th century pedo? I'll pray for your salvation.
one day the banner of islam will be flown over your lands... you will be conquered with the sword and Allah will curse you and Jesus will break your crosses...
>The Latin Tradition holds to a doctrine of predestination and that works are involved in sanctification but salvation is not “earned”, how I’m still unclear.
Basically if you go to heaven or not simply depends on if you're in a state of faith and contrition right before death and this final perseverance of grace is not earned but you can fall into and out of grace before then. You can't even pray without grace.
>tradcaths and ortho bros fighting over myths that were made up
>tradcaths
Not every Catholic on the internet is a "trad".