Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You should post many pictures of Patriarch Kirill.
What do you do about the numerical differences between the Septuagint and the Vulgate, which is based on pre-Masoretic texts?
Apologies, Dominika. I thought people will like the article, as it tries to combine Eastern and Western Tradition, but you're right, I should have posted a briefer snippet. As for the St. Kolbe link I mentioned, but forgot to give (posted it on my phone, and was in a bit of a hurry that day), here it is now:

So, if we look at the Fathers, they are absolutely unanimous that (1) the Prophet Moses was given supernatural revelations and "prophetic visions", as it were, of all that happened at the beginning of Creation; and therefore is the sole absolutely reliable source about it. And (2) The Fathers tell us not to believe foolish heathen writings to the contrary, especially those designed to undermine our Christian Faith.

St. Augustine says, "reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed." [i.e. to say, 5200/5500+400 odd] (See City of God, Book XII, Chapter 10). For an online source, see The Prophet Moses gives us the number of years from Adam to Abraham, and we know well that Abraham lived around 2000 B.C, 4000 years before now.

There's also the book of the history of Adam and Eve, pre-dating the Incarnation of Christ by several centuries, wherein it is stated

Quote from: History of Adam and Eve
"GOD said to Adam, "I have ordained on this earth days and years, and thou and thy seed shall dwell and walk in it, until the days and years are fulfilled; when I shall send the Word [Our Lord Jesus, as we know] that created thee, and against which thou hast transgressed, the Word that made thee come out of the garden and that raised thee when thou wast fallen.

2 Yea, the Word that will again save thee when the five days and a half are fulfilled."

3 But when Adam heard these words from God, and of the great five days and a half, he did not understand the meaning of them.

4 For Adam was thinking that there would be but five days and a half for him, to the end of the world.

5 And Adam wept, and prayed God to explain it to him.

6 Then God in His mercy for Adam who was made after His own image and similitude, explained to him, that these were 5,000 and 500 years; and how One would then come and save him and his seed."

And hence, we discover, how and why the Byzantine Tradition relates it; some say, by the prayers of Mother Mary, the appointed time was cut short by about 300 years. Thus, the Byzantine Tradition bears witness to what it would have been without Mary's Prayers, and the Roman Tradition bears witness to what it became thanks to Mary's Prayers.

Then there is the Gospel of the converted Pharisee Nicodemus, first a secret Christian, as mentioned in the Gospel, then an open one, as we read in the Gospel of St. John: "we have only three days allowed us from the dead, who arose to celebrate the passover of our Lord with our parents, and to bear our testimony for Christ the Lord, and we have been baptized in the holy river of Jordan ... By these five cubits and a half for the building of the ark of the Old Testament, we perceived and knew that in five thousand years and a half (one thousand) years, Jesus Christ was to come in the ark or tabernacle of a body;..." Anyway, it is a very small difference whether it is 5 and 1/2 or 5 and 1/5th 1000 years. Certainly, as all Tradition testifies, it is less than 10,000 years. But if someone finds it very difficult to believe less than 10,000, let him or her at least believe less than 100,000.

What evolutionists want is sufficient time not only to change monkeys into men, but also to allegedly evolve particles into people. The first requires 10s of millions of years at the very least, and the second not by any means less than several billions. Thus, a proof that the world is any less young than about 10 million years constitutes a solid disproof of the heresy of apes-to-men evolution. But a proof the world is any less young than about 1 billion years, by itself, constitutes a solid disproof of the apostasy of particlestopeople evolution.

Mor and Eamon, I will send you a PM shortly on your questions to me about my future :) God bless.

For now, just one scientific consideration highly problematic for evolutionist storytellers, "Before about 25 years ago, when DNA (whose half-life Nature calculates at about 521 years) was demonstrably and repeatedly found in several of planet Earth's most ancient fossils, it was almost universally agreed (and still is largely agreed) that DNA could not survive for more than about 10,000 years. Like soft tissues in ancient fossils, C14 in rocks, minerals, living organisms and all the places it shouldn't be, Helium still being in radioactive rocks (all of which would have diffused out long ago, Helium being the second lightest element in the periodic table), this aDNA (antediluvian or ancient DNA) as it is now called, presents a serious challenge for long-agers and for evolutionists. See Wiki: "1990s
The post-PCR era heralded a wave of publications as numerous research groups tried their hands at aDNA. Soon a series of incredible findings had been published, claiming authentic DNA could be extracted from specimens that were millions of years old, into the realms of what Lindahl (1993b) has labelled Antediluvian DNA.[9]"

68.     Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue?
DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age, such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain,c 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves,d and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals.e Dozens of plants and animals have left DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old.f DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a “200-million-year-old” fossilized fishg and possibly in “80-million-year-old” dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed.h Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120-million years old.i

These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reexamine the 10,000-year limit.j They now claim that DNA can be preserved longer if conditions are dryer, colder, and freer of oxygen, bacteria, and background radiation. However, measured disintegration rates of DNA, under these more ideal conditions, do not support this claim.k" The true conclusion is: DNA cannot survive more than 10,000 years. But DNA is found in several of the earth's most ancient fossils. Ergo, it necessarily follows, that those samples are hardly 10,000 years old. [P.S. And I apologize again for the length, but it is not possible to treat of such an important issue in a very short way. Hope this is fine. God bless.]
I dearly hope I am not breaking any rule by posting just this one solitary picture of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, and this short article. Enjoy! From: As Catholic Christians, we rejoice to see Russia overthrow the Communist yoke, and become happily Orthodox Christian again. Thoughts on the article?

"Astonishing Church Growth in Russia Sees Record Number Training for Priesthood

The Russian Orthodox Church is seeing the highest numbers ever training for priesthood , according to an independent Russian news agency.

The sharp rise in seminary admissions across the church's 261 dioceses, known as eparchies, means 1,593 ordinands are expected to begin studies this summer, a 19 per cent increase from last year, Interfax reported.

Another 827 young men will also start the church's preparation course, or propaedeuticum, 25 per cent more than last year.

On top of that 5,877 seminarians are currently preparing for ordination, according to the Tablet.

After enduring systematic persecution under Soviet rule, Vladimir Putin has made the Russian Orthodox Church emblematic of the socially conservative values his rule promotes.

Around 70 per cent of the population are now members of the ROC and it has grown to be the largest and most powerful of the 14 Orthodox denominations with 144 million members, 368 bishops and about 40,000 priests and deacons.

By contrast to the ROC's dominance, the Roman Catholic church is Russia has just four dioceses with a membership of about 773,000 – just 0.5 per cent of the population – according to the Vatican's 2017 Annuario Pontificio.

The startling levels of growth are demonstrated in the dramatic increase in Orthodox places of worship in Russia. At the end of Communist rule in 1991, just 6,000 existed but now there are 36,000 – an average of three new places of worship every day."
Quote from: Vanhyo
Well, good think that:
1. He [Bishop St. Augustine] wasn't the Pope.

Yes, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council enlists him as one of the holy Fathers "we follow in every way". What is interesting is that Filioque could probably be shown from each and every one of those Fathers of whom Constantinople II had stated that, and yet Filioque is wrong?

Divine simplicity = God has no parts (doesn't mean there is no multiplicity in God)
Thomistic simplicity =  collapsing everything into the absolute one(whatever that means) and removing all real distinctions within God.

Non sequitur. There is no "whatever that means". Thomistic Divine Simplicity is the same as Augustinian Divine Simplicity, which is the same as Scriptural Divine Simplicity. St. John the Apostle teaching God is Love, is sufficient proof that Love is the Divine Essence. Similarly, the Lord and Apostles teach Christ is the Wisdom of God. Therefore, Wisdom is the Divine Essence. That is Divine Simplicity.

No real distinction between divine essence and divine energies

Non sequitur. Energies are usually translated "operations" in the West. The Divine Operations do indeed differ from the Divine Essence. But they are not another God, as some have mistakenly exaggerated; they are nothing less than God's activity in the world of creatures.

Catholic Dictionary: "Divine Operation: God's activity outside of himself. Also called divine activity ad extra in contrast with divine activity within the Trinity. The Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence teach that all of God's activity outside the trinity is done simultaneously and equally by all three persons. Thus everything that God does in the world of creatures, whether naturally or supernaturally, is the operation of all three divine persons."

According to trent (your dogma) What you partake in salvation is creaturely effect or habit.

Non sequitur again, sorry. This is Trent. "The causes of this justification are ... the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation."

On the contrary, according to the Orthodox Church a christian's good deed is God working in man and serves as means to further that union(theosis). A pegan's "good deed" is something carnal with another end and goal of its own. Both are absolutely not the same and very different.

Have you never heard the Catholic Church, and all Catholic Theologians unanimously - except some modern Modernists who reject Tradition and Thomism today - explain the distinction between a natural good deed (such as that Cornelius did, in Scripture), and supernatural good deeds (such as that baptized Christians do)? This is Catholic Theology 101, I'm afraid.

Here's the CCC, which cites, Vatican II often, which you claim is allegedly filled with this error, on what is necessary for salvation: "161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'" and "848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 The CCC says God will bring non-Christians who strive, through natural good deeds that are open to the working of God's Grace and the revelation of God's salvation in Christ, to saving faith in Him. That is the sense in which it is said believing in Jesus is necessary for obtaining salvation, and that is what happened to Cornelius also.

you may not have a choice but to try to make a sense out of the non-sense

Have you ever prayed deeply and specifically about the Filioque matter, Vanhyo? Have you felt God's urging as to what to do about it?

I pray about it before the Blessed Sacrament; and I have witnessed miracles happen when people spend a month faithfully and daily, or at least regularly, praying there. To me, it seems clear that the Holy Spirit is displeased with the error that His Hypostasis is not eternally from Father and Son. Although you do not see it, the Holy Spirit says it amounts to saying the Holy Spirit is not loved by the Father and the Son eternally. Which is why it offends Him so. Did you read the OP article from beginning to end, Vanhyo? It was written by one who both knows the history and theology. How can 15 Greek Fathers and 15 Latin Fathers, divinized by theosis, testify to what is allegedly mistaken or even heresy (according to you)?

To me, it's very simple how this issue, that has caused a lot of needless grief, can be resolved: A simple profession of the Universal Church, of the Greek Orthodox Church in Ecumenical Council together with us, of Patriarch St. Tarasius' profession at Nicaea II, as Rohzek also suggested.

God bless.
Por, rather the sequence goes like - Orthodox raise some objections, Catholics like Wandile and myself address and answer all the objections from beginning to end in detail, with numerous authorities; then, like above, almost all of them are ignored, one single statement in one document is latched upon, and all the ancient Fathers, the demonstration from theological reason etc are again ignored.

Moreover, it's Orthodox who raised this as an issue historically, almost the only issue at the time of Lyons II - along with Azyme Bread, perhaps, with the latter now almost universally recognized as a non-issue, after St. Thomas wrote, "On the Errors of the Greeks". Even Purgatory was raised later, and though much disputed in Florence, Purgatory too becomes a non-issue after the Synod of Jerusalem, which teaches an almost identical doctrine to Purgatory. Then Transubstantiation is raised, that too was taught in that synod.

The last thread I started on Filioque was in February; there, too, the objections were answered by Wandile and I. If you want to discuss Filioque in only one thread, we can do that. I've discussed almost every other topic in theology here, including where Orthodox and Catholic agree mostly, and some in which we still disagree slightly. But since it's an Orthodox-Catholic discussion subforum, there will inevitably be discussion on the doctrinal differences; whether in threads by myself or others, of which Filioque is still a part. God bless.

Rohzek, please answer the questions point by point. Wandile has sufficiently answered regarding Munich, but we'll come to that last.

(1) You mentioned The Fire Analogy. Please answer, address or at least comment on the Fire Analogy of St. Gregory to show us that you read it, and take it into account in your theology: "we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch[/b" and ""one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause" and the "interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father". We can prove this is the unanimous Tradition of the Greek Fathers.

(2) Please answer the authority of Pope St. Damasus in a Synod around 380: “We believe…in the Holy Spirit, not begotten nor unbegotten, not created nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, always co-eternal with the Father and the Son” [1]

(3) Please explain why Pope St. Leo is wrong in a letter controverting Sabellians: "as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another" [2] In your last post, you claimed, "The Holy Spirit is fully the Holy Spirit by means of the Father alone. Yet, it also has an eternal hypostatic relationship that it shares with both the Father and the Son."

How will you reconcile that with Pope St. Leo who says, the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, has Personal Distinction by Procession from Both?

(4) Please answer St. Robert on the Athanasian authorship of the Athanasian Creed: "Blessed Athanasius who says in his Creed, “The Holy Spirit is not made nor created nor generated by the Father and the Son, but proceeds.”

To this testimony two things can be said. First that this creed is not really from Athanasius, but this is easily refuted, both from Nazianzen where he says in praise of Athanasius that he composed a most perfect confession of faith that the whole West and East venerate, and also from Augustine who by name cites Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and adduces a complete section of this creed, and he uses whole sentences from it, with the name of Athanasius, as if it were very well known in the Church."

(5) Please explain why the Fifth Ecumenical is incorrect to say, "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."[3], or how, if it is correct, this decree can be squared with the writing of Pope St. Leo quoted above. After citing St. Leo, Cardinal St. Robert notes, "Ninth Blessed Leo, “There is one who generates; another who is generated; another who proceeds from both.” And this is that Leo the Great whom in the fourth Synod 630 Bishops, almost all Oriental, extolled with the greatest praise, and about whom they repeated again and again that as Leo believes so also do we believe."

Let him who can answer these 5 questions point by point. Then, we can discuss modern statements. The Council of Florence has the greatest authority, it is dogmatic and infallible. The Catechism has next greatest authority, it is Authentic Ordinary Magisterium. Finally, Greek and Latin Theologians recently, although not Magisterially, agreed on a Joint statement specifically on Filioque, so why not cite that? "The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8 The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character."[4]

I agree with Wandile, the Father is the sole ultimate source, the Son is the intermediary or medium. Do you agree with the above statement of Catholic and Orthodox modern Theologians, Rohzek? Does the eternal Spiration of the Spirit take place by the Son?


[1] see, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, A. Edward Siecienski, pp. 56-57
[2] Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
[3] Second Council of Constantinople [553]
[4] The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit: Study from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Religious Topics / Re: The early Church/Fathers and the Holy Scriptures.
« Last post by noahzarc1 on Yesterday at 11:37:44 PM »
I enjoyed a number of N.T. Wright's works. I believe he is Anglican, which is why he has a sensitivity for the early church and is not completely outside the boundaries of say a James White or John MacArthur. Are you reading, "Scripture and the Authority of God?"
I went to a conference in 2010 on Christian persecution and the final speaker was a young woman from China who was arrested and imprisoned for Christ and then escaped China after her release. I was amazed by her story that when the authorities came to break up their Church, they arrested their pastor and a number of Christians and bulldozed the church down. She related that when her pastor finally got out of prison he was elated to find that his church had spread to 30 new churches from the congregants who fled and avoided capture. Protestant or not, it showed the great zeal and fire the Chinese have for Christ.
Reviews / Re: What is everyone reading?
« Last post by noahzarc1 on Yesterday at 11:26:17 PM »
The Forgotten Trinity by James R. White.

From what I can tell, the author sticks to solid analysis and does not seem to inject his Reformed (or other specific) theology at all. I suppose most/all Christians have a common belief in the Trinity with perhaps Orthodox being the strongest expositors of this that I can think think of. Even so, White's book is good.
James White is a noted and staunch anti-Catholic and thus really anti-Orthodox and the whole of the Catholic Church. After you finish his book, I would recommend you check out the many debates between White and Robert Sungenis. Dr. Sungenis answers a number of White's objections. The issue for White, the "reformed" theologian is that he would write a book about the Trinity, when he is staunchly opposed to the very church that gave him the Trinity. Its a strange dichotomy.
I recently was in a place where there is no EO church in communion with Constantinople, so I attended the Armenian parish instead. Nice people and warm welcome. Unfortunately, I don't speak Armenian and the only thing the priest said in the local language was who is allowed to receive communion.

Out of curiosity, are EO's allowed to receive communion in the Armenian church? I understand that OO and EO are not in communion, but at the local Armenian church I visited, I believe it was told that we could receive communion there.

Armenians may allow the EO to receive, but the EO usually would not allow the EO to receive from Armenians.

Edit: ask your bishop/priest.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10