Author Topic: Please Read....  (Read 1696 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline desertknight

  • Defender of the Faith
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • Manna: 30
  • Gender: Male
Please Read....
« on: Fri Jan 08, 2010 - 00:29:33 »
This is from another site that I am a member of and is from a famous convert to Catholocism.

All my prayers and love to my eastern brothers...

THE EASTERN / GREEK
ORTHODOX BIBLE
NEW TESTAMENT"]Indeed, the relationship between Church and Eucharist is significant as we
recall the words of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:
Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God; broken, but not divided; forever
eaten yet never consumed; sanctifying all who partake.b
The similarity with holographic objects is striking. By contrast, the
paradigm of Western science is also that of Western theology, and we can
paraphrase Michael Talbot as follows:
Western theology has labored under the bias that the best way to
understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom (or the
Church), is to dissect it and study its respective parts.
In other words, conventional Western ecclesiology used to tell us that
there is one big worldwide universal Catholic Church, of which local
Churches are only parts. According to this view, the parts are not “whole

Offline trifecta

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please Read....
« Reply #1 on: Sun Jan 10, 2010 - 20:32:10 »
DK,

I have a lot of respect for you (and other Catholic) posters in that you endure the sligs and arrows that are flung by some less-than-kind anti-Catholic posters.

With this post, however, you didn't make your point well.  Firstly, I dislike post titles like this one.  But I took the bait and read it anyway.

Stephen Ray's analysis appears to be incorrect, but you seemed to cut it off before he was finished making his point.  I much prefer to read original posts than those that are quotes from others.

Regarding this one, I think Ray is correct in our view of the church, as opposed to the west's idea that the sum of individual units makes a whole.   

Ray, like many Catholic apologists, likes to a point out the importance of the word catholic.  The original meaning of catholic is not universal, as Rome defines it..
It means "concerning the whole" or more clearly, "wholeness."  As an Orthodox apologist and he'll tell you the same.  Now, why would I believe a Catholic apologist who recently researched the issue to the Orthodox who actually speak Greek?   

More simply, however,  remember that Ignatius quote.  I'll paraphrase:  where the bishop is gathered with the people in communion, there is the catholic church.   This is the first occurence I know of the term catholic.  Now, which makes more sense, catholic meaning "universal" or catholic meaning "wholeness."   The latter, of course.  The whole world isn't gathered at one eucharistic gathering.  Instead, it means the gathering is complete with the bishop, liaty, and the eucharist.   Doesn't that make more sense?

Ray seems to want to use his knowledge of Greek to arrive at a definition of catholic (and church).  But one only need to look at the Ignatius paraphrase above to see that his intrepretation is open to question.

Besides, with languages, words in one generation do not always have the same meaning as in others.  Ray doesn't consider this fact, but wants to impose his definition of catholic to the whole of history.  This is linguistically incorrect.   My favorite example, is the Christmas song, "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen."  The word Merry doesn't make that much sense.  Why would Merry gentleman be in dismay?  I later learned the word "merry" did not mean "happy" at that time but "stoudt" or "brave."  Insert the word  brave there and the song makes a whole lot more sense.

Understanding historical meaning goes well beyond trying to dissect a single word and apply it to the whole of history.

 

     
anything