Scholasticism

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kafka' post='1855702' date='May 2 2009, 03:08 PM']Perhaps one reason is that so they not become objects of worship.[/quote]
In the Churches of the East the Bible (and the Gospels in particular) are objects of worship. I venerate the four Gospels every Sunday when they are carried in procession by the priest at the little entrance.

[Aloysius]

as you know, the West tends to make a distinction in the English language between "worship" and "veneration"; which is made in the Latin with "latria" vs. "dulia"... there should be no "latria" offered to the books of the scriptures themselves.

[kafka]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855853' date='May 2 2009, 08:00 PM']as you know, the West tends to make a distinction in the English language between "worship" and "veneration"; which is made in the Latin with "latria" vs. "dulia"... there should be no "latria" offered to the books of the scriptures themselves.[/quote]
thank you.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855853' date='May 2 2009, 06:00 PM']as you know, the West tends to make a distinction in the English language between "worship" and "veneration"; which is made in the Latin with "latria" vs. "dulia"... there should be no "latria" offered to the books of the scriptures themselves.[/quote]
Actually, modern English, not the West, distinguishes between the words [i]worship[/i] and [i]veneration[/i].

The word [i]worship[/i] really just means "worthy of honor," and historically speaking it is a broader term that can be used in connection with either [i]adoration[/i] ([i]latria[/i]) or [i]veneration[/i] ([i]proskynesis[/i]), which are more specific terms.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Apotheoun

[kafka]

this is just brilliant now we are going to get into semantics.

I was originally referring to the avoidance of worshiping the actual original manuscripts as a sort of idol. God permitted them to be lost so that we would not worship the actual concrete object itself because of its nature as being the original peice of paper containing the writings of the Sacred Writers.

Does charity and good will and one mind even exist among Catholics let alone Christians anymore?

Edited May 3, 2009 by kafka

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855874' date='May 2 2009, 09:11 PM']Actually, modern English, not the West, distinguishes between the words [i]worship[/i] and [i]veneration[/i].

The word [i]worship[/i] really just means "worthy of honor," and historically speaking it is a broader term that can be used in connection with either [i]adoration[/i] ([i]latria[/i]) or [i]veneration[/i] ([i]proskynesis[/i]), which are more specific terms.[/quote]
yes, but whereas the English Speaking Western Church has long ago conceded the distinction within those two words and now refuses to use the term "worship" to refer to something which gives only dulia or proskynesis, the English Speaking Eastern Church does not and continues to use the word "worship" to refer to both.

kafka's point is basically that the Scriptures in Christianity are not meant to hold the same place that the Classical Arabic version of the Koran holds within Islam.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855892' date='May 2 2009, 06:25 PM']kafka's point is basically that the Scriptures in Christianity are not meant to hold the same place that the Classical Arabic version of the Koran holds within Islam.[/quote]
I do not agree. The Second Council of Nicaea accords [i]proskynesis[/i] to the Sacred Scriptures.

So even though Muslims may offer reverence of a sort to the Qur'an, Islam remains iconoclastic, while Christianity embraces icons as real manifestations of divine grace (energy).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kafka' post='1855888' date='May 2 2009, 06:20 PM']I was originally referring to the avoidance of worshiping the actual original manuscripts as a sort of idol. God permitted them to be lost so that we would not worship the actual concrete object itself because of its nature as being the original peice of paper containing the writings of the Sacred Writers.[/quote]
If they still existed I would worship them as icons of Christ's presence in His Church, but -- of course -- Eastern Christians already do that with the extant copies of the scriptures, some of which date to the early and mid 2nd century.

[Aloysius]

I think kafka's use of the word "worship" was not even necessarily theological, actually (if I do presume to speak for him, he can correct me if I'm wrong)... what I mean by "the way the Koran is used in Islam", I do not mean the honor they accord it, but the legalism created by their adherence to the text only in that specific language... "worship" can have that type of sense too, to say someone "worships" something, you know.

proskynesis/veneration/dulia is certainly due to the scriptures in any version that the Church gives them to us. latria is not, and most English Speaking people tend to rigidly define the word "worship" to mean only "latria"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855910' date='May 2 2009, 06:43 PM']I think kafka's use of the word "worship" was not even necessarily theological, actually (if I do presume to speak for him, he can correct me if I'm wrong)... what I mean by "the way the Koran is used in Islam", I do not mean the honor they accord it, but the legalism created by their adherence to the text only in that specific language... "worship" can have that type of sense too, to say someone "worships" something, you know.[/quote]
Although the Sacred Scriptures can be translated into any language: only the original Greek New Testament is authoritative, and the Church Fathers would hold that only the LXX Old Testament is authoritative as well, because it is the Old Testament text quoted by the New Testament authors, who acted under the energy of divine inspiration.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

I suppose I should mention that I do understand the desire to regain the wider application of the word "worship" in the English language, because when the distinction is made, dulia tends to be translated with the English word "honor" which does not truly encompass the full meaning that "dulia" should entail. it's an inadequacy of English, though, because Greek and Latin both have distinct words and thus can both clearly say against any charge of idolatry "we don't offer 'latria', we offer 'dulia'", but if "worship" is used in its broader sense, we really have no word to show that we don't offer what is only proper to God to created things.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855912' date='May 2 2009, 09:48 PM']Although the Sacred Scriptures can be translated into any language, only the original Greek New Testament is authoritative, and the Church Fathers would hold that only the LXX Old Testament is authoritative as well, because it is the Old Testament text quoted by the New Testament authors, who acted under the energy of divine inspiration.[/quote]
but the fact that there exists no original text means that we cannot exactly hold up a standard version to point to the way the Koran in Classical Arabic is pointed to (though that is not the original text even though they posit that it is, other versions have been found in archaeology)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1855913' date='May 2 2009, 06:48 PM']I suppose I should mention that I do understand the desire to regain the wider application of the word "worship" in the English language, . . .[/quote]
It is important because modern translations continue to evidence the older usage, e.g., the NIV Bible (not a translation I like, but one that illustrates my point) says: "Worship [προσκυνήσεις] the Lord your God, and serve [λατρεύσεις] him only."

[kafka]

I dont need to correct you Al. I am in accord with your understanding. I know the difference between latria and dulia.

When I post it is for a Western Latin Roman Catholic. I cannot take into account Eastern theology nor do I intend to, nor could I possibly.

Please make note of this Apotheon.

When I post its for love of Truth and the Faith, and not meant to be a controversy or ambivalence toward anyone or any particular theological school.

You must respect the fact that I have good will and am trying to advance the understanding of the Faith albeit in my own little way.

When theology gets to be too technical and too absorbed in semantics it makes me sick.

I hold the view that a theologian is supposed to be a teacher to the entire Church and not an exclusive almost gnostic like practice only for the initiated. Yes there is a time for technicality and strenous thought and effort and difficult terms but generally a good teacher may reduce profound truths into simple expressions. Simplicity in profundity.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='kafka' post='1855933' date='May 2 2009, 07:01 PM']When theology gets to be too technical and too absorbed in semantics it makes me sick.[/quote]
The inspired words of Sacred Scripture and the terms hallowed by the God-inspired Fathers of the Councils are a part of theology, and so ignorance of them is ignorance of Christ.

[kafka]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1856046' date='May 2 2009, 10:42 PM']The inspired words of Sacred Scripture and the terms hallowed by the God-inspired Fathers of the Councils are a part of theology, and so ignorance of them is ignorance of Christ.[/quote]
May Grace and Peace be with you:

all your days.

and may the prayer of Jesus Christ be answered soon:

{17:20} But I am not praying for them only, but also for those who through their word shall believe in me.
{17:21} So may they all be one. Just as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, so also may they be one in us: so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Edited May 3, 2009 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1855912' date='May 2 2009, 08:48 PM']Although the Sacred Scriptures can be translated into any language: only the original Greek New Testament is authoritative, and the Church Fathers would hold that only the LXX Old Testament is authoritative as well, because it is the Old Testament text quoted by the New Testament authors, who acted under the energy of divine inspiration.[/quote]

I think Pope Pius XII would disagree that only the original Greek New Testament is authoritative:

"And if the Tridentine Synod wished 'that all should use as authentic' the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which 'had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.' Hence [b]this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate[/b] was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

Wherefore [b]this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine[/b] by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority." (Pope Pius XII, [i]Divine Afflante Spiritu[/i] 21-22; emphasis added)

[kafka]

Aloysisus and Resurrexi forever.

Yet you two need to open up a bit.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1854309' date='May 1 2009, 11:47 PM']Have you read what Adrienne von Speyr says about Aquinas?[/quote]


[quote name='Paddington' post='1854343' date='May 2 2009, 12:27 AM']What did she say?[/quote]


[quote name='Innocent' post='1855034' date='May 2 2009, 10:30 AM']Please do tell us what she says, if you have the time. I would like to know.[/quote]


Um.. I've been searching the net, but can't find anything about what Adrienne Von Speyr said about Aquinas, except for [url="http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/hub_introavsbksaints_may08.asp"]this snippet[/url]:

[quote]It is important for the reader to bear in mind that the only thing intended to be shown here is the particular person's prayer and attitude toward prayer in relation to God. This attitude can in some cases be considerably different from the person's other achievements in the world and also for the Church ([b]as, for example, the surprising and indeed shocking portrait drawn of Thomas Aquinas shows[/b]). The degree of integration between inner life and external work can vary quite significantly in the different saints, as we see, for example, in the description of Gregory of Nyssa.[/quote]

which tells me nothing and has only increased my curiosity.

Apotheoun, Please end the suspense and tell us what she said! Onegai itashimasu!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1856136' date='May 2 2009, 09:55 PM']I think Pope Pius XII would disagree that only the original Greek New Testament is authoritative:[/quote]
Pius XII may not have liked it, but God Himself chose to inspire the Sacred Scriptures in Greek, not Latin, and I think that God knew what He was doing.