Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Convert Issues / Re: Evangelical Orthodox (the EOC) Nostalgia Music
« Last post by Alpo on Today at 04:21:33 PM »
So it took just eight messages to some innocent nostalgy to evolve into an argument. This is
Faith Issues / Re: Strange icons
« Last post by Keble on Today at 03:57:17 PM »
There's another variant of the Virgin of the Sign which also shows the child in the womb as an actual unclothed infant but with a less naturalistic posture.
One does have to wonder at the leadership of Francis as of late. If he is not a heretic in the See of St. Peter,  (one of them, anyway), he is damned close to it.
It's the latter. It's worrying because it seems he is more concerned with being liked but everyone rather than teaching what will obviously make him unpopular. If I am wrong, Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.
Slavic Languages / Re: Serbo-Croatian, other Balkan speakers
« Last post by Charles1967 on Today at 03:41:13 PM »
October 18 je moja majka rodjendan.
Dobro screchno Slava od pomoz tebe Sveti Luka!.

Ne znam moja crkva jurisdictija? SOC?Stara srpski Crkva ovde je zovete  Sveti Jovan Crkva u San Francisco

Ja idem i Grksko Crkva ovde. Samo mala dane po godina

Zejliobe da daznate vise Pravoslavan historia i kultura
Ovde nemoj puno Pravoslavan ljudi u moja priatellle
Ovde u California samo New Age. Joj!

Ah, lepo :) Hvala :)
Da, mislila sam, da li ides u srpsku Crkvu, ili grčku ili neku drugu.
Mislim, da svuda toga ima (New Age i slične stvari), u Americi možda više...

Pardon moja loshe srpski pisem .
My writings not good. What i was trying to say was.
There is not a lot of Orthodox people here. Most people are
Not believers in any Church. But they say they believe in something .universe.  ect. That is the New Age belief. They dont attach themself to a single religion.
I was speaking of others not myself. Sorry if my translation was confusing.
One does have to wonder at the leadership of Francis as of late. If he is not a heretic in the See of St. Peter,  (one of them, anyway), he is damned close to it.

I didn't know that term exists among Lutherans. What is one supposed to believe in to become a Lutheran heretic?

Simple. Defy the Book of Concord. I was referring to to the term "heretic" in its Roman Catholic sense. Obviously, by a LUTHERAN definition of heterodox, the Roman Church is so in many categories, but that is another issue.

Within Lutheranism, however, being anything OTHER than a Quia Lutheran as regards the Book of Concord makes you a heretic.

It is true that some DO regard the Smalcald Articles as optional in the Book of Concord. I am of two minds about that myself.

Now, when I refer to a heretic from Lutheranism, I do not refer to people who do not claim to be Lutheran. For example, an Orthodox Christian cannot be a Lutheran heretic. Whilst I may disagree with his beliefs in certain areas, he is not trying to masquerade as Lutheran. I think you get my point.
One does have to wonder at the leadership of Francis as of late. If he is not a heretic in the See of St. Peter,  (one of them, anyway), he is damned close to it.

I didn't know that term exists among Lutherans. What is one supposed to believe in to become a Lutheran heretic?
Nah actually the recent synod should have shown you that most bishops are orthodox. The liberals are in the minority my. The problem is that this minority are in power and hold positions of influence. The church is resisting them hence you see sketchy documents beings released but never reaching full magisterial authority because of the push back by the conservatives against the heretics.

It's a bit problematic that the pope is one of those chaps sending out heretical letters, isn't it?

It is but nobody said he can't be in error. Just look at pope John XXII...

I do think however that Pope Francis has not explicitly taught the breach yet. Many of the orthodox Bishops even all say that Amoris Latitia doesn't change the teaching. But it is evident that ambiguity was dleiberately put in the document to allow for breaches of church teaching.
Everything seems to be historical now.
Serbian media report it's the first visit of the ecumenical patriarch to Croatia, so I think it deserves this adjective.
Convert Issues / Re: Evangelical Orthodox (the EOC) Nostalgia Music
« Last post by Elisha on Today at 03:29:10 PM »
as an unwitting proof of Baumstark's law, our parish (which was NOT EOC, but similar background) sings the TriSAagion (with the Tex drawl) when we go around the Church for Great and Holy Friday to the tone (or tune?) in the link.

Btw, maybe it could be included as one of those from the first composer listed.   ;)

Just for you, Scamandrius.   ;) ;D
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: The Creed and the Filioque
« Last post by Wandile on Today at 03:24:25 PM »
Concerning Revelations 22:1, I can find no evidence from the commentators after Ambrose about the double procession. Besides, if you look at the whole passage, its clear Ambrose is referring to the economy of salvation, which is explicitly a temporal issue.

Bede in his commentary on Revelations 22:1, clearly betrays my understanding of Ambrose as the verse speaking about the economy of salvation for the Church. Primasius of Hadramentum also understood it as such.

And both Haimo of Auxerre and St. Bruno of Segni understood the River of Life as being the teaching of the two testaments, which is not incompatible with the above interpretation. However, it is clear that all of these great Latin theologians thought of it as an explicitly economical or temporal issue of contemporary salvation.

Latin theology does not split between temporal and eternal.

Yes, it does.
Not in the manner you intend. With regard to the relation in God, the west has no distinction between how he acts within himself in time or eternity. That is pure fact. That distinction is byzantine one of late antiquity.

I suggest you go pull a copy of Bede's commentary off a shelf and read it. What you say is patently untrue.
you just admitted that his interpretation betrayed the point you tried to convey. He sparks are manifestly clear but again your explaining away thing blatantly evident.

Besides, it was Florence that made clear that the Latin position was specifically eternal. They refused any sort of ambiguity proposed by the Orthodox party.
Because they tried to dupe them into saying they profess Filioque but never really wanted to lay bare what they really believed (the denial of causality in the son with respect to the Holy Spirit). The Latins were smart and new the benefits of explicit language

quote author=Wandile link=topic=70014.msg1423222#msg1423222 date=1474844590]
How God acts in time, so he acts in eternity for God does not change. This is from the time of the fathers who are the source of Latin theology and its foundation principles. And Augustine taught similarly (who himself wa a heavily influenced by St. Ambrose). Ambrose is this explaining an eternal truth of the procession hence he taught the Filioque in many places

We're not talking about actions. We're talking about the non-temporal origins of the Godhead.[/quote]
Beget, Cause, proceed... Those are actions that occur in the divine intellect

and the way he understood the Filioque was not the way you understand it.
He understood it exactly the same way we do evidenced in how Augustine (influenced by Ambrose who he met and was his teacher) taught it. So know that when you listen to Augustine teach Filioque you are listening to St. Amrbrose (and we all know what Augustine had to say). Latins know their fathers best.

Obviously Latins don't know their fathers best if they think Ambrose of Milan supports the Filioque.
Obviously you don't since you contradict not only the Latins but also your own "Pillars of Orthodxy" mark (admitting the truth that Latin fathers taught the Filioque) and Photius (claimed the Latin fathers had erred after finding out they taught Filioque).

He, St Ambrose, said :

"The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead."
This indicates nothing as the Son having a cause for the Spirit. Furthermore, he is speaking about the unity of substance of God. Read the whole passage. It concludes with this:

Probavimus igitur, unam praesentiam esse, unam gratiam esse Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, quae tam coelestis atque divina est, ut propterea agat gratias Filius Patri dicens: Confiteor tibi, Pater Domine coeli et terrae, qui abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus, et revelasti illa parvulis (Luc. X, 21).

"Therefore, we have esteemed there to be one presence, one grace of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is as much of both heavenly and divine, that because the Son of the Father exudes grace, saying: "I confess to your, Father Lord of Heaven and Eather, which you have hidden from the wise and prudent, and have revealed to those little ones (Luke 10:21).
It's speaks to the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as proof of the spirits eternity! He says this epclicitky by making reference to the fact that the Holy Spirit is never seperated from the Father and the Son. If he never seperated from the Son the he must proceed from him in a causal way, not a mere temporal one which makes the son a conduit.

"Learn now that as the Father is the Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as the Fount of Life; so that, he says, with Thee, Almighty God, Thy Son is the Fount of Life. That is the Fount of the Holy Spirit, for the Spirit is Life, as the Lord says: 'The words which I speak unto you are Spirit and Life,' for where the Spirit is, there also is Life; and where Life is, is also the Holy Spirit."

The second quite clearly speaks to causality (something the EO deny completely to the son)

What causality are you speaking of? All this statement indicates is that they A.) all share the same substance, and B.) that grace comes from all three. This means nothing with regards to your understanding of the Filioque.
It says the Son of then fount of The Holy Spirit. That speaks to origination! A fount is a source of water. He uses this imagery to express who the Son and Father relate to the Holy Spirit

The problem is (as I've seen) you strenously read an eisegetical and unnatural interpretation in the Latin fathers to explain away the obviousness of the Filioque doctrine they all profess. It's funny that your own Mark of Ephesus even admitted the Latin fathers were teaching the Filioque doctrine as understood by the CC. He just said that the texts were all corrupted.

Can't really blame him. He had a lot on his shoulders.
He had months of hearing and ex making the passages quoted to him. He knew what he was saying when he admitted the Latin fathers manifestly taught the Filioque. Unless your pillar of Orthodoxy is a lying intllectualy dishonest man?

Most of his compatriots were intellectually retarded.
Not really, he was in Good company with Besaarion (the foremost of them all) and Schilarios. all three of your most eminent theologians admitted the passages they encountered taught the latin Filioque doctrine

St Bede already made his reference explicit that it refers to the Holy Spirit

Bede clearly makes the distinction of temporal and eternal procession, especially since he also speaks "after baptism" on the very verse.
No he speaks of the fruits of the eternal procession and how they affect us in time. There is only one procession, you are creating multiple ones which is heretical in both our communion.

Andrew, a seventh century bishop of Caesarea, made the following comment on Revelation 22:1.

“The river of God, having been filled with waters running through the heavenly Jerusalem, is the Life-giving Spirit which proceeds from God the Father and through the Lamb, through the midst of the most supreme powers which are called throne of divinity, filling the wide streets of the holy city, that is, the multitude in her being "increased more than the [grains of] sand, "according to the Psalmist [Psalm 139.18].”
( Andrew of Caesarea; Commentary on the Apocalypse; The Fathers of the Church vol. 123., p. 232)

Notice "and is used in scripture yet "through" is used here further noting the patristic equality of the the terms.

This does not mean what you think it means. Obviously Andrew was writing in Greek, where the equivalent term of "procedere" designated a cause. That's why he used the "per Filium" formula specifically. In Latin, "procedere" does not necessarily entail a cause. It's a verb that can function much more widely.
The Filioque wasn't even initially about stressing causality but about consubstantiality. The Greeks pressed causality. Even then, it's still maintains a Filioque meaning as he uses through, to show how the procession from the Father and the Son occurs. Your interpretation is violently untrue to the text referenced. He is in essence sayin the Holy Spirit is ultimately from the Father through the son (that is Filioque) and it's based in Reveltion 22:1

The Orthodox Study Bible says this:
22:1 The river of the water of life manifest the Giver of Life, the Holy Spirit (see 21:6, also Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:8).

I have no qualms with the River of Life being the Holy Spirit. What I have qualms with is how you are interpreting Revelations 22:1 as something that occurs eternally and correlates with the Catholic understanding of the Filioque.

It's is eternal. It's a vision of God in eternity (out of time in his eternal heavenly abode on his throne... If that isn't eternity then eternity is meaningless word in Eastern Orthodxy)
Heaven is created, hence inside Time.
Heaven is not inside time. Time is a construct of the universe. Hence God entered time at the incarnation as both our churches teach. How could we say this if heaven was in time (which would mean he never enter time at the incarnation since he had already been in time)

Only God himself is eternal. But our heavenly reside with Him will be within Time forever and ever unto the ages of ages. Why? Because we are created and will be with him in Creation. The idea that we won't reside with him in Creation smacks of some sort of crypto-Manichaeism.
Where are you even getting this from? Who has spoken about how we reside in God? Thy speaks to deification a topic we haven't even touched. Nevermind Manichaeism was a heresy concerning the evil of the flesh and all created. What the he'll are you even going on about?

And actually, it wasn't the Greeks who pressed Causality. It was the Franks who pressed it. Theodulf of Orleans got pissed at II Nicaea for using the per Filium formula in the Creed and wrote a long screed as to why the Son is also the cause of the Holy Spirit. Needless to say, his arguments amounted to Sabellianism.

Nah the Greeks did as when they first ever heard the Filioque this was there primary objection to it. The Latins used it to udnerline consubstantiality. The Greeks press's causality because they sued the wrong word to translate procedre.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »