Progressive revelation

[Donna]

According to the Denzinger, an anathema was placed thus at the Lateran Council (649):

"If anyone does not properly and truly confess [i]in accord with the Holy Fathers[/i], that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary..." etc; ..."and that she incorruptibly bore Him..." etc;

This is placed under the heading "Mary...conceived without original sin" in the index. It is # 256

-[i]my emphasis [/i]

[Matt Black]

Donna, what about the Hebrew?

Apotheoun and Bro Adam, I don't recall Athanasius being sanctioned by any Magisterium when he propounded his doctrine of the Trinity or his NT canon - but both turned out to be right even though he didn't live to see that and was repeatedly condemned and exiled for his Trinitarian orthodoxy. So, quite the opposite in his case and his lifetime

As for Luther, what he propounded could be as inferred from Scripture as Athanasius' Trinitarianism, and what Adam quoted of his writings could as easily be drawn from Augustine's doctrine of original sin

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 5 2005, 02:47 AM']Apotheoun and Bro Adam, I don't recall Athanasius being sanctioned by any Magisterium when he propounded his doctrine of the Trinity or his NT canon - but both turned out to be right even though he didn't live to see that and was repeatedly condemned and exiled for his Trinitarian orthodoxy. So, quite the opposite in his case and his lifetime.[/quote]
You proceed under the false assumption that I accept what St. Athanasios taught merely because he taught it. In reality I accept the teaching, not of St. Athanasios [i]per se[/i], but of the Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him, who defined the dogmas of the Trinity and Incarnation in successive General Councils (i.e., Nicea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon). The teaching of St. Athanasios is not perfect in every respect, for he failed to make the proper distinction between the theological terms [i]homoousios[/i] and [i]hypostasis[/i], but these terms were only distinguished in meaning at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I after he had died. Thus, I follow the Magisterium of the Church, which was instituted by Christ the Lord Himself in order to faithfully guard and expound the deposit of divine revelation, and not any one man. I also honor St. Athanasios the Great as a holy and venerable man, because he defended the truth of Son's consubstantiality with the Father, but I honor him because the Magisterium defined this truth, and not simply because St. Athanasios taught it.

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 5 2005, 02:47 AM']As for Luther, what he propounded could be as inferred from Scripture as Athanasius' Trinitarianism, and what Adam quoted of his writings could as easily be drawn from Augustine's doctrine of original sin.[/quote]
The teachings of Luther and St. Athanasios are not comparable. Firstly, because the Council of Nicea (i.e., the Magisterium) accepted the teaching of St. Athanasios as an orthodox expression of the faith of the Church, while the same cannot be said of Luther; instead, he was excommunicated by the Magisterium for heresy. Secondly, as far as it concerns the teaching of St. Augustine, it should be remembered that not all of his views have been accepted as [i]de fide[/i] by the Church, but even more importantly, it should be noted that Luther's interpretation of St. Augustine's doctrine does not take into account the full scope of the teaching of the bishop of Hippo. Luther ignored St. Augustine's anti-Donatist writings entirely, while also rejecting his teaching on free will. Luther was actually more of a determinist than Calvin, holding that free will was simply a fiction, and so Luther could not say what St. Augustine said, i.e., that "He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it." [St. Augustine, Sermon 169]

Luther's teaching, unlike St. Athanasios' teaching, was condemned has heretical by the Church, and so there can be no comparison between the two men. St. Athanasios is one of the blessed saints of the Church, while Luther stands in the line of those condemned for teaching heresy.

[Matt Black]

And would your answer be the same if you were living in 350 under an Arian bishop?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Edited April 5, 2005 by Matt Black

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Matt Black' date='Apr 5 2005, 09:35 AM'] And would your answer be the same if you were living in 350 under an Arian bishop?

Yours in Christ

Matt [/quote]
Yes, my answer would be the same, because the Magisterium as a whole did not subscribe to the Arian heresy. Now of course, unlike the Roman Pontiff, individual bishops, i.e., taken as individuals, can err, but the Pope and the bishops in communion with him cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

[Matt Black]

But can we even talk of a Magisterium outwith a General Council at that point in church history? And if the correct approach to Athanasius and the Arian controversy then was to call a General Council where both sides were represented, surely the same standard should have been applied to Luther and his followers? But there was no General Council at which the Lutheran view was represented; indeed I am not sure there could have been as you no longer had the Orthodox on side

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Archangel]

FYI, there is difference between [b][u]t[/u][/b]radition and [b][u]T[/u][/b]radition. For example, praying the rosary is [b][u]t[/u][/b]radition and the Immaculate Conception is [b][u]T[/u][/b]radition.

[Matt Black]

Anyone care to comment on the Luther/ Athanasius comparison?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Archangel]

Here's an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the Council of Trent which was held in response to the Protestant heresies.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm[/url]

I guess bureaucracy moved slowly back then, and so the council did not convene until a year before Luther's death in 1546.

[cmotherofpirl]

Matt it would be accurate to say we have progressive understanding of truth, however, we do not have progressive revelation of truth.

There are no new dogmas.

Edited April 9, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Matt Black]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Apr 9 2005, 02:17 AM'] Here's an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the Council of Trent which was held in response to the Protestant heresies.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm[/url]

I guess bureaucracy moved slowly back then, and so the council did not convene until a year before Luther's death in 1546. [/quote]
Yes, I'm aware of Trent, but I'm not sure it can be considered a General Ecumenical Council since the Orthodox were not represented. Also, why were no Lutherans present? To my mind, that was like having just the Arians or just the Catholic-Orthodox sides present at Nicaea I or Constantinople; it was one-sided and did not present an ecclesial consensus. This was particularly tragic,since when Catholics and Lutherans did finally manage to sit down together in the late 20th century, they were able to agree on a mutually acceptable definition of sola fide at Augsburg in 1999; what a pity this could not have been hammered out by them at Augsburg in 1530!

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Archangel]

Were any other Protestant denominations or the Orthodox present at Augsburg in 1999?

[Matt Black]

No, good point; it was not ecumenical in that sense. But it did demonstrate that the rift could be healed and some kind of mutually acceptable accommodation reached between Catholics and Lutherans. I'm just saying that if that was done in 1999, it could have been done in theory in 1520-1, and saved us all a Lot of Bother

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Archangel]

It would have been better if Luther had stayed within the Church rather than going off and starting his own.

[Matt Black]

Hang on a mo - didn't the Church excommunicate him? I'm not sure that he really had a lot of choice about it once that decision had been made

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Brother Adam]

The Church has participated in much Lutheran and Anglican dialogue. I'm reading one book on it now called ""Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in Ecumenical Dialogue"

And the Church eventually was forced to excommunicate him, but not before trying their best to talk to him. He was paranoid and mentally instable. He initiated his removal from the Church.