Council O' Trent And Number O' Sacraments

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858957' date='May 5 2009, 06:43 PM']so it's somehow protestant to talk about the sacraments which Christ administered between His birth and ascension/Pentecost... good to know. sheesh.[/quote]
Al,

It is, because it is a part of the polemic that developed in order to justify Western Catholic practice in disputes with Protestants. Protestantism is irrelevant to me, and reducing the faith to concepts that can be used in order to argue with Protestants has no real interest for me.

God grant you many joyful years,
Todd

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1858959' date='May 5 2009, 08:46 PM']Yes, to me it is. The Fathers never spoke of the institution of the "sacraments" in that fashion, nor did they limit the mysteries to seven in number. In fact, as Vladika Lazar said in one of his YouTube talks, St. John Chrysostom identified more than 24 rites / rituals as mysteries, and his list was not exhaustive.[/quote]


It seems nonsensical that you wouldn't say Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper when you so adamantly refuse to say "Words of Consecration" but instead always say "Words of [b]Institution[/b]"

Edited May 6, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Aloysius]

But is not relations between the Roman and Eastern Churches relevant to you? Could you not accept a Roman Church which spoke about 7 sacraments administered to the faithful in some way by Christ during His 33 years but admitted of any number of 'mysteries'/'sacraments'... I'm not trying to justify the Faith to Protestants here, I'm trying to justify Romans following a list of 7 for themselves at least... I'm trying to see if that list can't have some special significance.

And anyway, Florence lists the 7 Sacraments as well. The list was not invented to combat Protestantism, it was the Roman Tradition already.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858968' date='May 5 2009, 06:51 PM']It seems nonsensical that you wouldn't say Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper when you so adamantly refuse to say "Words of Consecration" but instead always say "Words of [b]Institution[/b]"[/quote]
I simply believe that the holy mysteries are rendered life creating by the [i]epiklesis[/i].

[Resurrexi]

That doesn't answer why you refer to the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper the "Words of Instittion".

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858972' date='May 5 2009, 06:52 PM']And anyway, Florence lists the 7 Sacraments as well. The list was not invented to combat Protestantism, it was the Roman Tradition already.[/quote]
Al,

I think if you re-read my earlier posts you will see that I attribute the theological reductionism in connection with the holy mysteries first to the medieval Scholastic philosophers. Their rationalist system later is used against the Protestant heretics.

God grant you many years,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858980' date='May 5 2009, 06:57 PM']That doesn't answer why you refer to the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper the "Words of Instittion".[/quote]
I think that you will look in vain for the use of the "words of institution" among the Fathers of the first millennium. That notion gains popularity only after the rise of Scholasticism, and then the term is used by many Eastern authors simply to help in refuting the Western Church's position.

[Resurrexi]

That's simply what [b]you[/b], Apotheoun, kept calling them when I would refer to the "Words of Consecration"

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858992' date='May 5 2009, 07:02 PM']That's simply what [b]you[/b], Apotheoun, kept calling them when I would refer to the "Words of Consecration"[/quote]
You got me . . . and now you know that I called them that to irritate you in particular.

I believe, as I have said before, that the whole Eucharistic anaphora is consecratory, but if I had to choose a precise moment for the change of the elements it would be at the epiklesis.

[Resurrexi]

I believe that the Words of Consecration alone, and no other part of the Anaphora is consecratory. To back up this belief I have the testimony of several Ecumenical Councils.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1858997' date='May 5 2009, 07:06 PM']I believe that the Words of Consecration alone, and no other part of the Anaphora is consecratory. To back up this belief I have the testimony of several Ecumenical Councils.[/quote]
Yeah, I know what you think, and I also know that we do not agree on many issues, but whether or not we agree is not all that important.

The older I have gotten the less I worry about people agreeing with me, perhaps you will experience that too.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

Would you not say that my beliefs in regards to that matter are more in line with the Professio Fidei?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1859016' date='May 5 2009, 07:15 PM']Would you not say that my beliefs in regards to that matter are more in line with the Professio Fidei?[/quote]
Yes, your beliefs are in line with the teachings of your [i]sui juris[/i] Church.

[Resurrexi]

Eastern Catholic candidates for the episcopacy have to make a profession of faith exactly the same as the one made by Latin Bishops (sans the Filioque) do they not?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1859026' date='May 5 2009, 07:19 PM']Eastern Catholic candidates for the episcopacy have to make a profession of faith exactly the same as the one made by Latin Bishops (sans the Filioque) do they not?[/quote]
Yes, that is true in the Ruthenian Church, because it has no patriarch of its own, but it is not true in the other Patriarchal Churches, or in the Ukrainian Church, which elect their own bishops.

Besides, I can recite the professio fidei because it simply states that I accept what the Church teaches, and I do accept what the Church teaches. The Melkite Church is Catholic, and its faith is my faith, i.e., the faith once for all given to the saints, and which cannot change or develop.

[Resurrexi]

Do you honestly reject the notion of development of doctrine (in the orthodox sense)?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1859036' date='May 5 2009, 07:26 PM']Do you honestly reject the notion of development of doctrine (in the orthodox sense)?[/quote]
The doctrines of the faith are not open to development, because they are encounters with the Father, through the Son, in the energy of the Spirit, and as such they are experiences and not merely notional concepts.

[Apotheoun]

Interestingly, my position is closer to that espoused at the Roman Church's [i]First Vatican Council[/i], when the bishops assembled at that time said: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

My views on doctrinal development can be found on my website: [url="http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/development_of_doctrine"][u]The Development of Doctrine[/u][/url]

[Resurrexi]

I probably would have liked you a lot better several years ago haha

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1859047' date='May 5 2009, 07:37 PM']I probably would have liked you a lot better several years ago haha[/quote]
Yes, you would have!!!