How can the Church of Rome justify the amount of power they confer on the Pope given the Second Canon of the First Council of Constantinople? Even if she didn't ratify the Third Canon, she accepts the Second.
And how can the Church of Rome justify the filioque when it wasn't in the Creed drafted by the Council of Nicene?
Catholics think original sin is transmitted through sexual conception, so do you think a cloned human would be free from original sin?
How can you justify Purgatory and the idea that humans can "pay off" their sins? Isn't it kind of perverse to think of sin as a debt that can be settled? I know of course that you conceive of Christ as settling the human sin debt (an idea not really present in Orthodoxy), but if that was the big thing Christ did in Catholicism, couldn't you find salvation without Christ by just paying off your sin debt?
An aside question, and not so much a question of heterodoxy: what made you guys start approving the use of modernist art and music in worship? We both know that religious aesthetics have a spiritual dimension, they aren't just cosmetic as with Protestants--so radically tampering with them seems...risky.
>>93575
According to Catholic doctrine:
>all men inherit ancestral sin from Adam;
>God descended upon Earth as the Son in order to free mankind from this sin, was crucified, died etc.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
>Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
The theory of evolution states that we (as Homo Sapiens) gradually evolved from other creatures. This implies—if we don't misinterpret the theory—that Adam and Eve never existed. We evolved gradually as an entire population of tens of thousands over a very slow period of time. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo
If Adam and Eve never existed, no one fell, and we cannot inherit ancestral sin from no one. Moreover, there wasn't any reason which Jesus had to be born for, anything he had to free us from.
The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents"
Pope Pius writes:
>The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
>>93658
I'm Orthodox, but afaik I know the Catholic Church sees evolution as totally compatible with Adam and Eve. It's just that Adam and Eve wouldn't be literally as they were in Genesis, but the first human man and first human man and woman as products of evolution.
>How can the Church of Rome justify the amount of power they confer on the Pope given the Second Canon of the First Council of Constantinople?
From newadvent - I think this answers your first question and provides insight into the third canon:
The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See, which always based its claim to supremacy on the succession of St. Peter. Nor did Rome easily acknowledge this unjustifiable reordering of rank among the ancient patriarchates of the East. It was rejected by the papal legates at Chalcedon. St. Leo the Great declared that this canon has never been submitted to the Apostolic See and that it was a violation of the Nicene order.
And how can the Church of Rome justify the filioque when it wasn't in the Creed drafted by the Council of Nicene?
Arguably it was - it was a mixup between the Latin and the Greek. It was also meant as an affirmation against Arianism and Semi-Arianism which was still a problem. It shouldn't have been done unilaterally.
> so do you think a cloned human would be free from original sin?
Interesting question but I think you might be confusing current Church teaching on the matter (which I don't think is at the level of Dogma) with traducianism? I think Orthobros would have the same answer to your question.
>How can you justify Purgatory and the idea that humans can "pay off" their sins?
Anselmian satisfaction theory of atonement isn't Dogma, though it is widely taught. I personally don't accept it. As for purgation you guys believe in it too, just less elaborated. Theosis continues after death for most of us I imagine.
> what made you guys start approving the use of modernist art and music in worship?
No idea. Some say freemasonic infiltration, others the spirit of the 60's and 70's - whatever the cause it's a rupture from our own liturgical tradition and has no place.
t. Catholic who strongly desires reunion
>>93852
>but the first human man and first human man and woman as products of evolution
those don't exist, as I covered in my post
>>93886
>The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon, was never admitted by the Apostolic See,
There are several Apostolic Sees, and the Church of Rome acknowledges the Canon to this day. It had issues with the Third Canon only.
>Arguably it was - it was a mixup between the Latin and the Greek.
"The Filioque is now included in the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed used in most Western Christian churches, first appearing in the 6th century.[1]"
>I think Orthobros would have the same answer to your question.
Not really, since we don't see original sin as something transmitted through conception, but as the first sin that causes all living beings to suffer, and humans to be in a sinful condition.
>As for purgation you guys believe in it too, just less elaborated.
It's about healing one's sinful state, not sin debt. If it were about sin debt, well then we'd approve of self-flagellation as a method of purgation. But we don't. The major method of flesh purgation is fasting, and it's meant to be a joyful experience, not one of suffering.
>No idea. Some say freemasonic infiltration, others the spirit of the 60's and 70's - whatever the cause it's a rupture from our own liturgical tradition and has no place.
It started a lot earlier than the 60's and 70's.
Pic related is what non-modern religious art looks like
This is non-modern religious music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnyFDI9rN3A
(Still used in Orthodox worship, hence its English translation)
A very Catholic example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0d4qM7gCH8
I'm not opposed to religious modern art or music, it's just a matter of using it in worship.
>>93922
In Catholic theology, they'd be the first entities with souls.
>>94255
On Earth, I mean.
>>93886
>The purely human reason of Rome's ancient authority, suggested by this canon
Also, you're thinking of the Third here, which gave equal honor to the Bishop of Constantinople because it's the "New Rome" (this canon is now mostly rejected by the Orthodox, by the way, since the reunification talks over the last few decades established the Bishop of Rome as the first among equals--the only thing hampering our acknowledging him as our leader is that he's Catholic; if he converted to Orthodox, he'd instantly be first among equals in the Orthodox Church, the new Ecumenical Patriarch). The Second Canon doesn't deal with the Pope's authority in any rationalistic fashion, it doesn't really address it.
>>94232
>(Still used in Orthodox worship, hence its English translation)
Whoops, it's not in English
Here's one that is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf7LKa9w9hM
>>94258
>>94255
You realize that two people were not the parents of all humanity, right? So you're suggesting that soulless animals bred with identical animals (that magically had a soul) and that somehow this soul (and original sin wherever it came from) was passed on to the children. And eventually, after probably thousands of years of breeding, every man animal was now the child of someone with a soul + original sin, so they were all now magically human and damned for hell. Then fast-forward tens of thousands of years and the Jews invent a few gods, discard a few, finally settle on one, Yahweh (god of the army), and then a few hundred years after that Yahweh decides it is time to fix all the humans+souls by sending down a human+god to have himself killed to fix all the original sin (that came from somewhere) but only if you are dunked in water and say the magic words. Makes perfect sense.
>>93575
>modernist music
I don't quite care for it myself, but it's nice to see different ways to worship develop over time, so long as they don't conflict with the core beliefs of the church. Amazing Grace and all those other hymns are great, but there's no reason religious hymns should stop there.
I could see as time goes on and people write more and more hymns and music that they'll just be added to history, and in a century or two there will be a wholly different thing than modernist music, with contemporary stuff just being added as a footnote to our long history. Maybe a few songs or two will stick around, but the vast majority that don't fully reflect Catholic worship will simply fade away.
>>94401
The soul isn't passed on through reproduction in Catholic theology, God instills during the reproductive process.
>>94426
OH! Okay, now it makes perfect sense. Too bad the first people won't get to see their parents in heaven (or their spouses for that matter (Not that marriage existed, but I'm sure God was OK with premarital sex back then before humans invented marriage and god))
>>94403
Amazing Grace is modernist.
Modernist music is music that came out of the modern era. When I say there is some modern religious music I like, I'm thinking of someone like Palestrina.
How can the Church of England justify the amount of power it gives the Monarch? Protestantism deifies the state. It's 2015, everyone knows this.
>>93852
My thing with the whole evolution theory is that, yeah, evolution does exist, but we're dealing with a powerful deity here. If he wanted to create a human from scratch today, he could, despite there being tons of other humans around. If he wanted to spin up a world mid-cycle in its evolutionary process, what's to stop him?
The existence of Adam and Eve no more makes evolution invalid than God creating a human being in full would today. It simply changes the starting point for the evolutionary process.
>>94459
Marriage is about the first two humans, really.
>>94459
>Want to discuss the historical schisms of the church\
>While at the same time injecting your own atheist views
This isn't going to work you know.
>>94539
>You seem to want to somehow shove Adam and Eve into our evolutionary history somehow. It isn't going to work. Two humans didn't magically spring from the earth around some monkeys then start fucking until all of humanity was made.
It's not really an issue from my perspective, since the Orthodox don't think original sin is something "passed down" in procreation, but the original sin that afflicted the world with sinful condition.
>>94587
>the original sin that afflicted the world with sinful condition.
What sin? Who did it? Why did God make an entire universe that can be immediately tainted by one bad act? Seems like heaven would also have original sin since there is free will there as well, and fallen angels
>>93575
ITT: Americans try to understand the Vatican
>>94607
Yes, the spiritual realm was already hit by sin before the material realm, you're correct. And that was required for the material realm to be tainted by sin, as expressed with le no-treading-on-me juice man.
>>93575
>modern church music in my country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FexZCiC8SJw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK8gxGH1pDQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT1ueZpSuxo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND-L8vG9LsM
>>94693
This sounds like either complete and total incompetence or malevolence on god's part.
>>94628
>tfw you're an American Catholic
>>94761
You should read The Grand Inquisitor some time.
>>94761
Lot of supposition in this on what God would do. Perhaps he's got reasons for doing things that we're not privy to?
>>95496
