OK, it's just about lies.
In another place, I read this comment:
As a life long Catholic, I do have a question regarding the great schism. At one of the ecumenical councils, the second one, I believe, the Nicaean Creed was pretty much set in stone and it was determined that no changes could be made without approval of the council. When the western church added the filiique clause without approval, did this not violate the council? I've never heard or read what I considered an adequate explanation for this.
Which elicited this response:
I understand that the things were not done to the satisfaction of everybody, till a time came, they protested.
Now the attitude should be of forebearance and forgiveness. Let by gones be by gones, and a new effort for unifying the Protestants and Catholics should be made.
This individual seems to be equating Orthodox and Protestants. In an ostensibly charitable manner he prescribes forbearence!
To which I replied...
Yes, the Latin Cardinals protested the Greek deletion of the filioque from the Creed. Since the Greeks did not respond in a way that was satisfactory to these two Cardinals (one a future Pope) they took the Roman church out of the Orthodox communion of diaphysite churches.
The Latin Patriarchate and the four Greek Patriarchates were separated in 1054AD by an act of protest of the Latins.
It is now time to forgive and forget, and move forward for the sake of Christ.
And another Roman Catholic responded as follows...
In order to forgive and forget, the Eastern Orthodox must first repent of their lies against the Catholic Church, wouldn't you agree.
I'll assume you have never read the actual excommunication decree, which specifically praises the Greek people for their holiness, but pronounced anathema by name ONLY the Patriarch and two others of his fellow hierarchs.
I'll assume you did not know that the Patriarch Michael deliberately falsified the anathema profferred by the Latin delegation, a falsification which he had no shame about spreading to his flock, a falsification later discovered and rebuked by the Emperor.
I'll assume you are working off of this falsified document in your claim that the Latins accused the Greeks of removing filioque from the Creed. In fact, the excommunication only mentions - as far as filioque is concerned - that the participation of the Son in the Procession had been denied.
You'll get no sympathy except from anti-Catholics, for your statements.
Now I have to ask, have I perpetrated a lie in my statement above? Is this individual correct that I am working off of bad information?
If so...why? Did the Patriarch falsify the contents of the Bull?
If not...why not? Who knows what the Bull did state, and what evidence is available?
I dislike being called a liar, or the perpetrator of lies.
MichaelI know you were going for dramatic flair, but people need to know what your question is referring to based on the thread title (which is why I changed the title). - Cleveland, GM