Monotheism/beatific Vision

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312083' date='Jul 4 2007, 02:58 AM']Let me be as clear as I can be on this issue: there is no such thing as "Muslim worship," or "Jewish worship," or "Hindu worship," etc., because the only true act of worship was made by the incarnate Son of God to the Father in the Spirit, and this one and only act of worship is perpetually rendered present in the Church's liturgy.

[i]Ortho Doxa[/i] is given to God only by the Church.[/quote]
That's a false dichotomy. Scripture has many references to "worship" that is not Christian or Jewish. I certainly agree that the only true act of worship was and is made by Christ, but that does not mean that the word should be dropped out of all language apart from this one reference, as ultimate as it may be.

You still have not addressed the Acts 17 issue I brought up above.
[i]"...passing by and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the Unknown God. What therefore you worship without knowing it, that I preach to you."[/i]
I would also like to know what you make of Justin, Clement, Origen, etc. on this issue since they affirm a few things of interest. Would you say it is at least possible that Socrates was saved? hehe

I admit that some of the recent articulations are a bit too strong, but I wouldn't call this issue a "modern innovative position of the Roman Church". Ideas such as "implicit belief" and "intention of faith" can be found throughout Catholic tradition and I would say are pretty obvious in certain parts of Scripture.

You statement about "the modern Roman position" involving a Pelagian outlook honestly makes me wonder if you fully understand said position. Would you say that [i]Dominus Iesus [/i]is an expression of Pelagianism? The relentless opposition to any talk of worship apart from Christ's supreme worship also makes me wonder exactly what you think my position is.

[Apotheoun]

It is not a false dichotomy at all.

Jewish worship prior to the incarnation and paschal mystery of Christ was a shadow of the reality that is found only in Christ. That said, with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (which had been predicted by Christ in the Gospels), that system of worship ended, being fulfilled in Christ through His one oblation upon the Cross, and that one true act of worship made by Christ on Calvary is perpetuated in the Church, which is His body.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312085' date='Jul 4 2007, 02:18 AM']You[r] statement about "the modern Roman position" involving a Pelagian outlook honestly makes me wonder if you fully understand said position. Would you say that [i]Dominus Iesus [/i]is an expression of Pelagianism? The relentless opposition to any talk of worship apart from Christ's supreme worship also makes me wonder exactly what you think my position is.[/quote]
In all humility, I have a good grasp of the modern Roman position, I simply reject it as contrary to the Apostolic Tradition.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - [i]Dominus Iesus[/i] contains much that is good, but it does ultimately subscribe to some of the indifferentist views put forward at the Second Vatican Council. Nevertheless, it is basically a good document.

P.P.S - As I have said many times already, Muslim claims about who they "worship" are beyond the competence of the Magisterium to definitively affirm.

[Apotheoun]

The word translated as "worship" in Acts 17:23 is better translated as "honor" or "reverence." That said, the term does not imply that the pagan Greeks gave adoration ([i]latria[/i]) to Almighty God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312085' date='Jul 4 2007, 02:18 AM']Would you say it is at least possible that Socrates was saved?[/quote]
It is possible that Adolph Hitler is saved. But speculation of this kind is ultimately pointless.

It is better to affirm only what has been divinely revealed, i.e., that grace is active in the Church, and not to try and speculate about things that cannot in fact be known with any certainty.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312090' date='Jul 4 2007, 03:50 AM']The word translated as "worship" in Acts 17:23 is better translated as "honor" or "reverence." That said, the term does not imply that the pagan Greeks gave adoration ([i]latria[/i]) to Almighty God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.[/quote]
Oh come on. People erect altars to make sacrifice and offer worship to gods. I will grant that [i]eusebeite[/i] ([i]eusebeo[/i]) may be understood as a general kind of showing of piety, but the context seems clear enough and it would seem that New Testament translators in general disagree with your choice of words.
In any case the Scriptures are full of references to "worship" that is not that of Christ. The new testament is riddled with references to the worship of strange gods. In the New Testament the book of Revelation abounds with references to the worship of the beast.
There are verses in Acts which speak of pagan "worship" (same Greek word as in Christian worship). I will quote a single passage from John's Gospel in which Christ Himself speaks of foreign "worship". The translation I quote uses the word "adoration".

[quote]Our fathers adored [[i]proskuneo[/i]] on this mountain: and you say that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore. Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father. You adore [[i]proskuneo[/i]] that which you know not: we adore that which we know. For salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore [[i]proskuneo[/i]] the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him.[/quote]

This is a silly argument anyway. We don't disagree on the utter primacy of Christ's worship. We disagree on the use of a word but I would say that you are alone on this.

I have quickly put together a short biography of Orthodox scholarship on interreligious questions which, from what I know of these resources, differ from that which you have presented. My understanding of the Orthodox consensus on the question of salvation outside the Church is more inclusive than what you seem to be suggesting.

[quote]"Various Christian Approaches to the Other Religions. A Historical Outline", Yannoulatos
"Facing People of Other Faiths", Anastasios Yannoulatos, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Vol 18.
"The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Other Religions" James S. Cutsinger, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Vol. 42
"Christianity and Other Sacred Traditions", Philip Sherrard, Holy Cross Orthodox Press
"The Challenge of Contextual Theologies", The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 38
"The Operation of the Holy Spirit Outside the Church" Theodore N. Zeses, Seminarion Theologon Thessalonikes, No, 5
"Truth and Tolerance in Orthodoxy", A. Papandreou, Immanuel, 26/27
"Essays on Orthodox Christian-Jewish Relations", George C. Papademetriou
"Theology in Encounter: Risks and Visions", Demetrios Trakatellis, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. 25
"The Holy Spirit", Zescs, Seminarion Theologon Thessalonikes. No. 5
"The Boundaries of the Church: An Orthodox Debate", The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Vol. 35
"Christianity in a Pluralistic World, The Economy of the Holy Spirit" George Khodre, The Ecumenical Review, Vol. 23[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312087' date='Jul 4 2007, 03:27 AM']It is not a false dichotomy at all.

Jewish worship prior to the incarnation and paschal mystery of Christ was a shadow of the reality that is found only in Christ. That said, with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans (which had been predicted by Christ in the Gospels), that system of worship ended, being fulfilled in Christ through His one oblation upon the Cross, and that one true act of worship made by Christ on Calvary is perpetuated in the Church, which is His body.[/quote]
Ok, I think we all realize this basic fact. But I don't see how this constitutes a critique of official Catholic teaching.

[Apotheoun]

L_D,

You are not paying attention to my posts, I have not spoken about whether people outside the Church are saved or not. Instead, I have said that the only act of worship that is acceptable to the Father was made by His only begotten Son. As the Orthodox are fond of saying . . . it is possible to know where the Church is, but it is not possible to know where it is not.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312095' date='Jul 4 2007, 03:22 AM']Oh come on. People erect altars to make sacrifice and offer worship to gods. I will grant that [i]eusebeite[/i] ([i]eusebeo[/i]) may be understood as a general kind of showing of piety, but the context seems clear enough and it would seem that New Testament translators in general disagree with your choice of words.[/quote]
There is only one true sacrifice, and it was made by Christ on Calvary. Do you deny this truth of faith?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312096' date='Jul 4 2007, 03:23 AM']Ok, I think we all realize this basic fact. But I don't see how this constitutes a critique of official Catholic teaching.[/quote]
The Bishops at Vatican II specifically indicated that Muslims "adore" the one true God, and this comment is contrary to Tradition, which holds that the only adoration that can be given to the Father is made through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers unanimously rejected theological relativism.

Islam explicitly denies the divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Trinity, and because of this denial it is clear that it is a false religion, which cannot offer true worship to the tri-hypostatic God.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312089' date='Jul 4 2007, 03:30 AM']In all humility, I have a good grasp of the modern Roman position, I simply reject it as contrary to the Apostolic Tradition.[/quote]
You are far from substantiating such a claim. What do you mean by "the modern Roman position"? Systematic presentations such as [i]Dominus Iesus[/i] would be far more welcome on this question than documents expressing fluffy Vatican policies toward religious dialogue.
Second, what do you mean by Apostolic Tradition? If you mean the Fathers and first seven councils I don't think you'll get very far since at least on the side of the fathers you will be doing some heavy picking and choosing. If you mean the early sources as filtered through the past thousand years of Orthodox theologizing I would simply pit this against the authority of the Magisterium and we'll have an entirely different debate on our hands.

Similarly, if you mean Tradition in the more Catholic sense (Sacred Tradition), once again we will have the issue of authority to debate since I believe that the Magisterium alone (the body of Bishops in union with Christ's vicar) have the jurisdiction to definitively interpret and expound upon the deposit of Faith.

As to the statement that the Church has no competence to judge the object of Muslim belief and worship (acts of piety, how's that?), I would say that the Church can affirm just as well as it can condemn (as in the case of discerning false doctrine). But I would concede the point if we were talking about strictly dogmatic or doctrinal formulations, but of course the debt of loyalty owed by all Christians to the Church's guiding hand goes beyond such strictures and formalism. But of course the question I am concerned with is official and systematically coherent teachings, not the ambiguous P.R. statements.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312099' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:31 AM']There is only one true sacrifice, and it was made by Christ on Calvary. Do you deny this truth of faith?[/quote]
I have affirmed it at least three times and I find it offensive that you would suggest that I, or the Catholic Church, would deny such a basic truth.

[Apotheoun]

The burden of proof is not on me, but on those who claim that Muslims worship the true God.

Blessings to you,
Todd

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1312101' date='Jul 4 2007, 04:35 AM']The Bishops at Vatican II specifically indicated that Muslims "adore" the one true God, and this comment is contrary to Tradition, which holds that the only adoration that can be given to the Father is made through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers unanimously rejected theological relativism.

Islam explicitly denies the divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Trinity, and because of this denial it is clear that it is a false religion, which cannot offer true worship to the tri-hypostatic God.[/quote]
Yes, but at the most I would call this an ambiguity in Vatican II, not a heresy. What I believe to be the natural interpretation of such statements is that the "worship" or "adoration" is spoken of in a subjective sense. The question of whether Islam offers objectively true and acceptable worship to God is extrinsic.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1312103' date='Jul 4 2007, 03:37 AM']I have affirmed it at least three times and I find it offensive that you would suggest that I, or the Catholic Church, would deny such a basic truth.[/quote]
You, and the Bishops of Vatican II, affirm that Muslims "adore" God, this is impossible since they deny the divinity of Christ and the dogma of the Trinity.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Being offended is irrelevant to the topic under discussion.