Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Raskana]

As in, He was mortal like us?, I think that is what you mean right?

No, that Jenny is avoiding the fact that Christ was 100% human, with this bs that ‘he was mortal but not like an actual human’.

Ah, true, thanks.

[Necroghastia]

As in, He was mortal like us?, I think that is what you mean right?

No, that Jenny is avoiding the fact that Christ was 100% human, with this bs that ‘he was mortal but not like an actual human’.

As we all know, it is a 100% human thing to do things like transform water into wine.

[Salus Maior]

No, that Jenny is avoiding the fact that Christ was 100% human, with this bs that ‘he was mortal but not like an actual human’.

As we all know, it is a 100% human thing to do things like transform water into wine.

He was both 100% human and 100% divine.

[The free romanians]

No, that Jenny is avoiding the fact that Christ was 100% human, with this bs that ‘he was mortal but not like an actual human’.

As we all know, it is a 100% human thing to do things like transform water into wine.

Jesus christ was both 100% human and 100% God
He was the bridge between humanity and His grace

[Raskana]

As we all know, it is a 100% human thing to do things like transform water into wine.

He was both 100% human and 100% divine.

Dual Nature, that is an infallible Dogma.

[Necroghastia]

As we all know, it is a 100% human thing to do things like transform water into wine.

He was both 100% human and 100% divine.

So in other words...

Christ was mortal, but not in the same sense that we are. Christ was like us but we are not like Christ.

[The Archregimancy]

As I understand it, Ecumenical Councils are impossible without the Pope of Rome. I have heard this from Orthodox sources as well, but I don't remember their reasoning for it (granted, it's not the same as the Catholics give). I've been trying to find where I read that, but I can't so I suppose you're free to disagree. Arch might know what I'm talking about though.

This is a slightly tricky one.

As I understand it, we have a technical de jure position and a moral de facto position.

The technical de jure position is that we could hold an Ecumenical Council without the Papacy tomorrow. To be considered Ecumenical, it need only be accepted as such by the entirety of the Orthodox Church (noting here the formal Orthodox position that Orthodoxy is the one true church, and everyone else is either a schismatic or a heretic). There have been times when Orthodox hierarchs have referenced other councils as Ecumenical, notably the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, which - leaving aside its status as one of the most resolutely anti-Catholic statements in Orthodox history (which is only tangential to this point; I note it only to acknowledge it) - refers to the 9th-century Fourth Council of Constantinople (the Papal status of which is disputed) as the 'Eighth Ecumenical Council'. The wholly Papacy-free 14th-century Fifth Council of Constantinople is also considered to have the authority of an Ecumenical Council while not being formally counted as such. Ultimately, we always go back to the seven, but theoretically speaking there would be little to legally stop us from recognising any council as Ecumenical provided the Orthodox Church accepted it as such.

De facto, however, there's an almost unspoken historical recognition that whatever our often difficult relationship with the Papacy and Catholicism, it's a bit difficult to consider a council as properly 'ecumenical' without the involvement of the Papacy - which is a key part of the Pentarchy, as outlined in the Ecumenical Councils - and the body of the Catholic Church. This isn't a recognition of Papal supremacy by any means - we remain focused on collegiality, not to mention those pesky canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council whereby a Council can depose a Pope - but it is a recognition that while (from the Orthodox perspective) Catholicism may be heterodox, perhaps even heretical, its historical significance within Christendom is undeniable.

No doubt within Orthodoxy there are (as always) shades of opinion between and within these two points.

[The free romanians]

He was both 100% human and 100% divine.

So in other words...

Christ was mortal, but not in the same sense that we are. Christ was like us but we are not like Christ.

He is both
Not a God-man

[Raskana]

So in other words...

He was both
Not a God-man

Should we not say IS, since he lives?

[The free romanians]

He was both
Not a God-man

Should we not say IS, since he lives?

It is true
I am tired and was able to fall into this horrible horrible trap

[Old Tyrannia]

So in other words...

He was both
Not a God-man

"God-Man," theánthropos in Koine Greek, is literally a widely used description of Christ in Christian theology dating back to the 3rd century.

[The free romanians]

He was both
Not a God-man

"God-Man," theánthropos in Koine Greek, is literally a widely used description of Christ in Christian theology dating back to the 3rd century.

I mean Monophysitism

[Raskana]

Should we not say IS, since he lives?

It is true
I am tired and was able to fall into this horrible horrible trap

Its ok, do not be to hard on yourself.

[The free romanians]

It is true
I am tired and was able to fall into this horrible horrible trap

Its ok, do not be to hard on yourself.

I guess so

[Sordhau]

As in, He was mortal like us?, I think that is what you mean right?

No, that Jenny is avoiding the fact that Christ was 100% human, with this bs that ‘he was mortal but not like an actual human’.

That is not what I said. I explicitly said that He was like us, but that we are not like Him. Christ was absolutely Man, as we are, but He was also more than that; He had something we lack and this makes Him exceptional.

[Punished UMN]

No, that Jenny is avoiding the fact that Christ was 100% human, with this bs that ‘he was mortal but not like an actual human’.

That is not what I said. I explicitly said that He was like us, but that we are not like Him. Christ was absolutely Man, as we are, but He was also more than that; He had something we lack and this makes Him exceptional.

If Christ was fully human then his being incarnate at the moment of conception means that we are also incarnate from the moment of our conceptions. If Christ was incarnate at a different point in pregnancy than any other human is, then he wouldn't be fully human.

[Necroghastia]

That is not what I said. I explicitly said that He was like us, but that we are not like Him. Christ was absolutely Man, as we are, but He was also more than that; He had something we lack and this makes Him exceptional.

If Christ was fully human then his being incarnate at the moment of conception means that we are also incarnate from the moment of our conceptions. If Christ was incarnate at a different point in pregnancy than any other human is, then he wouldn't be fully human.

Pretty sure the whole "incarnate" thing is something no other human is.

[Antipatros]

I hope this is not crossing the streams too much (since there is overlap with some other threads), but why does the Catholic Church oppose the use of birth control? What is the biblical foundation for this stance?

[Michel Meilleur]

If Christ was fully human then his being incarnate at the moment of conception means that we are also incarnate from the moment of our conceptions. If Christ was incarnate at a different point in pregnancy than any other human is, then he wouldn't be fully human.

Pretty sure the whole "incarnate" thing is something no other human is.

The Verb of God became Man. He was born the Son, from the Father, before all centuries but made Himself fully and totally human to live and die like we do.
He was, in the regard of Nature, just as much Human as you and I and everyone else, made in the Imago Dei despite being God Himself. He was not less human nor was he more human.

[Punished UMN]

If Christ was fully human then his being incarnate at the moment of conception means that we are also incarnate from the moment of our conceptions. If Christ was incarnate at a different point in pregnancy than any other human is, then he wouldn't be fully human.

Pretty sure the whole "incarnate" thing is something no other human is.

I'm pretty sure most of us have bodies.

[Dylar]

I hope this is not crossing the streams too much (since there is overlap with some other threads), but why does the Catholic Church oppose the use of birth control? What is the biblical foundation for this stance?

do you want the long answer or the short answer?

[Antipatros]

I hope this is not crossing the streams too much (since there is overlap with some other threads), but why does the Catholic Church oppose the use of birth control? What is the biblical foundation for this stance?

do you want the long answer or the short answer?

I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. Long answer, I guess.

[Ertilea]

Save the ''Christians'' from their demographic transition a**.

[The free romanians]

Save the ''Christians'' from their demographic transition a**.

What does that mean

[Bistritza]

I've recently noticed a rise in complaints, mainly from priesthood and the ''successfully transitioned'' population;
that the monasticism of Eastern Orthodoxy has somehow become death-worshipping, rejecting not only the ''свет/lume/cosmos'' (definition subject to debate for which I have no care for here), but all creation itself... Unlike these very experienced monks, I can't claim to know how the monastic life feels.
However, I am willing to strongly argue in favor that, if it were not for (whatever you now revision it to be) Eastern Orthodox Monastic organization, in the past millennia, the church and Christianity itself would have been eradicated from these areas by numerous ''societal/lumenal/cosmological'' threats.
It has been the monasteries which provided shelter for oral history, customs, faith and culture to survive. I have not seen a change in this institution since it's inception.

---

My take-away point is the following;
Anthropologically pessimistic as monastic writings may be, perhaps after centuries of believing the tradition of good human nature is what lead to near extinction of the church.