OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 02:02:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why the RCC isn't Orthodox  (Read 10308 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« on: November 03, 2003, 07:37:10 PM »

Seeing the most recent joint statement regarding the filioque has gotten me thinking.  Suppose Rome makes a statement rejecting dual procession saying they ment per Filium all along (sort of like the Non-Chaledian game...see we were never really monophysites wink wink) which I don't see as being all that unlikely.  The basic impact of this new directive is to yank the Filioque from use in the RCC.  Then Rome comes out with some document to save face but at the same time basicly nullifies Vatican I and other Papal asperations, which does seem unlikely although not completely out of the picture.  At the end of the day nothing really major changes on the parish level, the daily lives of the average Catholic is no different.  

Thus I think all the joint statements and dialouges and such are all missing the boat.  The primary heresy of the latins is that of Barlaam.  The filioque is a touchy subject because it is not clear weather it means dual procession or per Filium and the RCC has wavered on this point!  The Papal claims are the natural result of rationalistic docrtine superceding hesychism.  So in the end both of those are symptoms of the big problem and even eliminating both of them will not bring the RCC any closer to Orthodoxy.  

The best writter IMO on this topic is Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpatkos.  His works aren't polemic in nature but they do show have unique Orthodoxy is and that is more than just a collection of doctrines to be assented to.  It is only when Orthodoxy is viewed as a collection of doctrines and not the living body of Christ and the cure of the soul that Barlaamism can be believed.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2003, 08:22:56 PM by +Â¥+¦+¦-ä+¼-ü+¦++-é » Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2003, 09:48:08 PM »

Eureka!  I have copied down this post and am sending it to JP2.  I expect tomorrow he will put back into effect the excommunication of the patriarch of Constantinople and those previously engaged at the Vatican in the work of ecumenism will be looking for other work.

I think the problem is not Barlaamism or the filioque but rather a lack of humility.  Both on the part of East and West.  It reminds me of the episode in the Gosple where the rich young man goes away sad when Jesus tells him to give up all his possessions.  I think that at times we are that rich young man.  Jesus calls us to follow him and give up our "possessions" which in some cases is our "orthodoxy" or "catholicism".  But rather than the rich young man going away sad it is Jesus who goes away sad as we hold too tightly to our ecclesiologies.

In the early undivided Church theologians were not people with M.Div's or Ph.D's but rather people who prayed.  Maybe if we turned more to prayer we might just get closer to that union Jesus prayed for in his high priestly prayer.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2003, 11:00:19 PM »

Even if the RC gave up all its stuff, filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal supremacy. Our leaders would say NO to union with them and they would see it as a "trojan horse" or a strategy of the Vatican to become the owner of the Church again.

Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2003, 11:51:06 PM »

Quote
I think the problem is not Barlaamism or the filioque but rather a lack of humility.  Both on the part of East and West.  It reminds me of the episode in the Gosple where the rich young man goes away sad when Jesus tells him to give up all his possessions.  I think that at times we are that rich young man.  Jesus calls us to follow him and give up our "possessions" which in some cases is our "orthodoxy" or "catholicism".  But rather than the rich young man going away sad it is Jesus who goes away sad as we hold too tightly to our ecclesiologies.

We need to give up our faith to follow the Lord?  That makes no sense.  Christ established a  (note the singular here) Church on earth - how can ignoring this facilatate anything based on Truth rather than humanistic goals?

Quote
In the early undivided Church theologians were not people with M.Div's or Ph.D's but rather people who prayed.  Maybe if we turned more to prayer we might just get closer to that union Jesus prayed for in his high priestly prayer.

The modern theologian that has had the greatest impact on my life had second grade education.  The heart and soul of Orthodox Theology is the Holy Mountain, and to this day has many monastics who are uneducated in the worldly sense of the word.  So you argument isn't true.  Besides the theology of Saints like Saint Gregory Palamas is timeless and is still as applicable today as when it was used to condemn the heretic Barlaam initially.  Even the theologians that are very well educated like Metr. Hierotheos base thier writtings on patristics and prayer life, not dry academics.  

The Church Chirst established is One and will always be one.  The bizarre notion that we are working to create this is foriegn to True Christianity which confesses, "I believe in ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church."  

Quote
Even if the RC gave up all its stuff, filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception, papal supremacy. Our leaders would say NO to union with them and they would see it as a "trojan horse" or a strategy of the Vatican to become the owner of the Church again.

This misses the entire point of what I said in my first post.  These things are simply symptoms of the heresy of Barlaam.  And it is Barlaamism that keeps the RCC from returning to Orthodoxy since many of the other issues have been resolved to an extent.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2003, 02:38:08 AM »

The heart and soul of Orthodox Theology is the Holy Mountain...

Really?  Why?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2003, 08:53:33 AM »

Nektarios

From my study of Orthodoxy and my brief experience of actually being Orthodox I don't think the heart and soul of Orthodoxy is the Holy Mountain but rather Jesus Christ.  I know the East and West have drifted apart since 1054 but not that much.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2003, 07:18:48 PM »

Quote
From my study of Orthodoxy and my brief experience of actually being Orthodox I don't think the heart and soul of Orthodoxy is the Holy Mountain but rather Jesus Christ.

You misquoted.  I said Orthodox Theology not Orthodoxy....But it really is impossibel to carry on this discussion with someone who doesn't believe the Church of Christ exists or believes that it is divided.  


Phil,

Since the theologian is one who prays and there is no place in the world more condusive to prayer...logically it follow that the Holy Mountian would produce many great theologians.  From the Holy Mountain came Palamite theology, St. Paisus and the Russian revival of monasticism, countless Saintly elders who have served as spiritual fathers to lay people and monasteries all across the Orthodox world.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2003, 07:59:05 PM »

Since the theologian is one who prays and there is no place in the world more condusive to prayer...logically it follow that the Holy Mountian would produce many great theologians.  From the Holy Mountain came Palamite theology, St. Paisus and the Russian revival of monasticism, countless Saintly elders who have served as spiritual fathers to lay people and monasteries all across the Orthodox world.  

Dear Nektarios,

I don't doubt that the theologian is one who prays, and that the Holy Mountain has produced many great theologians.  What I reject is that "The heart and soul of Orthodox Theology is the Holy Mountain...".  I think that's an overstatement.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2003, 08:12:25 PM »

Nektarios

I misquoted you. True.  Though I don't think anyone would have a problem with saying the heart and soul of Orthodoxy or it's theology is Jesus Christ.  

What makes you think I don't think the Church of Christ exists??   I don't think we know each other so I don't think you can pretend to know my ecclesiology.

By the way the Church of Christ does exist it's called the Holy Roman Catholic Church whose visible head here on earth in the Roman Pontiff.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2003, 08:20:15 PM »

Seeing the most recent joint statement regarding the filioque has gotten me thinking.  Suppose Rome makes a statement rejecting dual procession saying they ment per Filium all along (sort of like the Non-Chaledian game...see we were never really monophysites wink wink) which I don't see as being all that unlikely.  The basic impact of this new directive is to yank the Filioque from use in the RCC.  Then Rome comes out with some document to save face but at the same time basicly nullifies Vatican I and other Papal asperations, which does seem unlikely although not completely out of the picture.  At the end of the day nothing really major changes on the parish level, the daily lives of the average Catholic is no different.  

Thus I think all the joint statements and dialouges and such are all missing the boat.  The primary heresy of the latins is that of Barlaam.  The filioque is a touchy subject because it is not clear weather it means dual procession or per Filium and the RCC has wavered on this point!  The Papal claims are the natural result of rationalistic docrtine superceding hesychism.  So in the end both of those are symptoms of the big problem and even eliminating both of them will not bring the RCC any closer to Orthodoxy.  

The best writter IMO on this topic is Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpatkos.  His works aren't polemic in nature but they do show have unique Orthodoxy is and that is more than just a collection of doctrines to be assented to.  It is only when Orthodoxy is viewed as a collection of doctrines and not the living body of Christ and the cure of the soul that Barlaamism can be believed.  

Hey...I am new here but I thought I'd throw in my opinion.

I totally agree with you..it seems as if most Roman Catholics would ahve no problem throwing the Filioque out. As a Roman Catholic I can most certainly say that Roman Catholics are more concerned about hold hands during the Our Father prayer, altar girls, the Old mass vs. the new mass, ect. than the filioque. I have met many Roman Catholics, including RCC priests, who believe the filioque was a mistake and should be thrown out for the sake of unity. But we have a problem here, Rome just can't throw it out over night and expect the Orthodox to come running back. Rome has declared the filioque offical Church dogma, meaning the Pope can take it out of the Creed but to take it out of the Chruch teaching he must declare it a mistake and declare that the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils of the 13th centuries were in error and in fact not guided by the Holy Spirit, which I doubt he or any other Pope would ever do!

Most Roman Catholics think if the Eastern Orthodox bishops and clergy understand Rome will respect their traditions and that rome will trash the filioque, they will drop everything and come into communion with the Pope. However from my study of Orthodoxy (I am converting to Orthodoxy) union can only be re-established when Rome repents of her heresies and comes back to the true apostolic faith.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2003, 08:30:33 PM »

By the way the Church of Christ does exist it's called the Holy Roman Catholic Church whose visible head here on earth in the Roman Pontiff.

Needless to say, this is not the position of the Orthodox Church.  The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ, from which Rome separated herself.  

Carpo-Rusyn, I've received messages from people who think that your statement is an example of proselytism.  On the surface, I do not see it as such, but since you also made at least one statement in the past that sounded a lot like proselytism, be advised that the administrators are considering this issue, and the larger question of proselytism in general, and are in the last stages of finalising a policy on this.  I'm not going to censor this since we are not done with our work yet, but remember that while you are free to express what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about itself, please try to make clearer in the future that this is all it is so that it doesn't come across as proselytism among Orthodox on an Orthodox board, which is clearly against our regulations.  Thank you.  
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #11 on: November 04, 2003, 08:41:21 PM »

Carpo- Rusyn...

I respect your opinions but I must disagree with you.

"By the way the Church of Christ does exist it's called the Holy Roman Catholic Church whose visible head here on earth in the Roman Pontiff."

This statement is clearly not the teaching of the Orthodox Church, and probably not the beliefs of many who post here, but I understan where you are coming from, I used to and to some extent believe as you do. But I must say in all respect that there is truly one Church out there, a Chruch that holds firm to the faith of teh Apostles and the Church fathers, a Church that is lead in truth by the Holy Spirit, a Church who's head is Jesus Christ: THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.

God bless.

Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2003, 08:42:41 PM »

ps. please excuse my spelling errors....I'm a horrible typer :$
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #13 on: November 04, 2003, 09:18:05 PM »

I know the East and West have drifted apart since 1054 but not that much.

Carpo-Rusyn

That is an incredible statement.  I would say the theological differences are considerable.  Filioque, indulgences, purgatory, immaculate conception, increased earthly authority of the Roman Pontiff, Vatican I, Vatican II, the Novus Ordo "mass."

I would say the Ukrainian Catholics are closer to Orthodoxy, but that is all at the pleasure of Rome.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #14 on: November 04, 2003, 09:39:57 PM »

Ben,
I fully expected you to disagree with me and I in turn respect your opinions.

Mor Ephrem,
I was most certainly not trying to gain converts to Rome.  I was just representing what the RCC believes.  I am awed that you've gotten messages that some think I am proselytizing.  I never thought I was a veritable St. Paul of the keyboard.

I was heatedly reacting to a comment by Nekatarios in which he implied that I didn't believe the Church of Christ exists that I found to be offensive.  This is the free for all section of the forum, I intrepreted free for all as just that.  My apologies.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2003, 09:56:18 PM »

[Carpo-Rusyn, I've received messages from people who think that your statement is an example of proselytism. ]

I disagree.  It's his opinion right, wrong, or indifferent.  And he should have a right to say it on this board.

Though I whole heartly disagree with him, the issue should be debated rather than him censored. Isn't that why we are here?  But what do I know?

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2003, 10:09:03 PM »

Thank you Orthodoc.

And again I wasn't prosletyizing.  For all the people worried about my ability to convert others through a few posts...I thank you.  My homiletics prof never thought I'd amount to anything.

Carpo_Rusyn
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 04, 2003, 10:27:58 PM »

I disagree.  It's his opinion right, wrong, or indifferent.  And he should have a right to say it on this board.

Though I whole heartly disagree with him, the issue should be debated rather than him censored. Isn't that why we are here?  But what do I know?

Dear Orthodoc,

I noted in my post that I didn't feel on the surface that what he said was proselytism.  However, it was an issue at least once in the recent past when there was confusion over something he said.  I did not censor his remarks; they remain as they were originally written.  I don't think I even warned him in any *disciplinary* sense.  It was simply a reminder that proselytising is not allowed, and that the administrators are in the process of finalising an official policy on it that we will publish and impose, and so it would be good if he could make what he is saying more clear in the future.  If he is expressing his personal belief, that is fine (and yes, he is entitled to his belief; I am not insisting that everyone here believe the same things).  If he is expressing the belief of the RCC, that is also fine.  But for the time being, I'd appreciate it if it was made more clear in the posts themselves.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 04, 2003, 10:56:18 PM »

OK we have to consider several things:

1) This is the free for all
2) Some people are attacking the RCC by stating things that may not be accurate
3) CR is trying to answer misconceptions without proselytizing--I have spoken to him about this and that's not his intent.  If he makes a statement like "the Church of Christ is the RCC" he could of course and should of course clarify that but let's cut him a bit of slack here.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2003, 11:32:26 PM »

What's with your new avatar, the "icon" of "St." Dustin anastasios, anastasios?   Huh
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2003, 11:39:03 PM »

Rest assured, I did NOT do that!!
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #21 on: November 04, 2003, 11:44:29 PM »

Yikes, Dustin.

No, I don't think that will do.  I'm afraid some of Bobby's old tricks do manage to cross some serious lines.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2003, 01:37:58 AM »


Mor Ephrem:

I was replying to the comments you received from others regarding accusations he was proseltying.  Not your own personal comments on the matter.  I agree with what you write.

So let me clarify what I meant.  I don't believe he was proseltyzing but  making statements that he believes and upholds.

I'm not sure what was contained in any other of his post so I will leave the monitoring up to you and trust your judgement in the matter.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2003, 02:11:40 AM »

Thanks, Orthodoc.  I'm sorry for any confusion!
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2003, 07:00:34 PM »

Over at Byzcath we actually got a relatively sophisticated discussion of the Filioque going.

A few points to keep in mind:

1) The dogma referred to by the Filioque is the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from a single source and by a single spiration.

2) Even if (hypothetically) we were to start saying the Creed-sans-Filioque this dogma would not be dropped.  It was solemnly defined by the Ecumenical Council of Florence Wink Wink in the 1430's.

3) In the Summa Theologiae, Q. 36 a 2-4, St. Thomas Aquinas (interestingly enough) deals first with "Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son," and then with "Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," and answers affirmatively to both questions!  Thus, the "per Filium" is actually an explanation of the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

4) The semanitc issue cannot be overlooked.  The Catholic Church never inserted an "ek tou hyiou" after the "ekpeuromenon" in the Greek version of the Creed.  It has been suggested that this was because the Latin verb "procedit" allows for the per Filium understanding, while the Greek participle does not.  For what it's worth.

Blessings to all my potential proselytes! Wink Shocked

(Hey Dustin don't hyperventilate Cool)

LatinTrad
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2003, 07:33:54 PM »


Blessings to all my potential proselytes! Wink Shocked


LatinTrad

Dream on!

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
bripat22
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


Slava Tebie, Boze nas! Slava Tebie


« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2003, 07:36:17 PM »


.

Blessings to all my potential proselytes! Wink Shocked

(Hey Dustin don't hyperventilate Cool)

LatinTrad


 you gotta watch this rampant Latinizer!!!!!!!!!! Grin


   "O Lord, Save Thy People and Bless Thine Inheritance, Grant Victories to the ORthodox Christians over their Adversaries and by Virtue of Thy Cross, Preserve Thy Habitation!"

     "O Righteous Father Alexis, our Heavenly Intercessor and Teacher!  O Bright Adornment of the Church of Christ!
     Entreat the MAster of All, to strengthen the Orthodox Faith in America, to grant Peace to the World and to our Souls, Great Mercy!"
Logged

For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like!-

                            Maggie Smith "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie"
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2003, 07:47:03 PM »

Latin Trad

I thought the Pope had assigned me to prosletyizing this forum.  Maybe I missed a meeting and got reassigned.

ADMG

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,744



« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2003, 07:55:00 PM »

LT are you evangelizing for the Old Roman Rite here ?

Let me get the odds when I'm in Vegas this weekend and I'll get back to you.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2003, 08:52:13 PM »

LT,

The Orthodox anathematized the idea that the Son proceeds even from a single spiration at the Council of Blachernae in 1285.

Source: Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2003, 09:31:03 PM »

Since we are on the issue of the Filioque and since the council of Blachernae was mentioned I thought I would quote the Tomus of the council of Blachernae:

"We also render void their dangerous doctrine concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit. We have been taught from God, the word himself, that the all-Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; and we confess that it has its existence from the Father, and that it prides itself-exactly as the Son Himself does- in the fact that the same [Father] is essentally the cause of its being. And we know and believe that the Son is from the Father, being enriched in having the Father as His cause and natural principle, an in being consubstanial an of one nature with the Spirit, which is from the Father. Even so, He is not, either separately or with the Father, the cause of the Spirit; for the all-Holy Spirit's exsistence is NOT "through the Son" and "and from the Son" as they who hasten toward their destruction and seperation from God understand and teach."

This is of course not the entire tomus of the council but I feel this part best wraps up the Orthodox opinion on the Filioque.

Many will say that the council of Blachernae misunderstood the filioque and that the filioque just means the Son is invloved in the spiration but that the spirit actually proceeds from the Father. Praise God is this were true but it is not. The Roman Catholic council of Florence clearly declared the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

GBU!
« Last Edit: November 05, 2003, 09:34:39 PM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2003, 10:42:11 PM »

The Council of Florence also declared a few other controversial things - that the souls of the unbaptized would go straight to eternal punishment in hell (this was also understood to include unbaptized infants following the teaching of Bl. Augustine, and the definition of the Council of Carthage of 418 A.D.) The Feeneyites are probably the only ones who still hold this view.

Florence declared:

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence....also that the explanationof the words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need....Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. "

In contrast, after the Filioque was condemned during the 6th Session of the Council of Constantinople in 879-880 (in the presence of the Papal legates) Pope John VIII made himself clear in his correspondence with St. Photius [Epistle No. 8] that "we preserved it as we originally received it, without adding to or taking anything from it. To set you at ease thus, upon this subject, which has been a cause of scandal to the Church, we again declare to you that not only do we thus recite it but even condemn those who in their folly have had the audacity to act otherwise from the beginning, as violators of the Divine Word, and falsifiers of the doctrine of Christ, of the Apostles, and of the Fathers, who have transmitted the Creed to us through the Councils; we declare that their portion is that of Judas, because they have acted like him, since, if it be not the body of Christ itself which they put to death, it is, at all events, the faithful of God who are his members, whom they tear by schism, giving them up, as well as themselves, to eternal death, as also did that base Apostle. Nevertheless, I think that your Holiness, so full of wisdom, is aware of the difficulty of making our bishops share this opinion, and of changing at once so important a practice which has taken root for so many years. We therefore believe it is best not to force any one to abandon that addition to the Creed, but we must act with moderation and prudence, little by little, exhorting them to renounce that blasphemy. Thus, then, those who accuse us of sharing this opinion do not speak the truth."

« Last Edit: November 05, 2003, 10:43:12 PM by Byzantino » Logged
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2003, 10:51:26 PM »


2) Even if (hypothetically) we were to start saying the Creed-sans-Filioque this dogma would not be dropped.  It was solemnly defined by the Ecumenical Council of Florence Wink Wink in the 1430's.

LatinTrad

The Arians held a council back in the 4th Century and called it ecumenical.  By this logic in point #2, we would need to consider even what the Arains said in their "ecumenical council".   Shocked  Councils outside the Orthodox Church can not be considered, even if the participants called it "ecumenical" Smiley
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2003, 11:18:12 PM »

Justianus

I don't get you.  The Arians were considered by both East and West as heretics therefore outside what was then an undivided Church therefore their council couldn't be ecumenical.  Though I guess EO's consider RC's as heretics so therefore our councils don't count as ecumenical.  Right?  

But then again the Patriarch of New Rome was at the Council of Florence and he signed off on everything.  So where does that leave the issue.  I know St Mark of Ephesus ran screaming from the council but the Patriarch went along with things which is a pity as Constantinople didn't get the expected military help they wanted.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2003, 11:29:41 PM »

In my modest opinion, I always believed Oriental Orthodox and the Latin Church to be Apostolic Churches, remnants of the Universal Undivided Church, who shared at some extent the Orthodox faith, in spite of the terminological differences and political problems between those Churches. This continue to be true among the Non-Chalcedonians.

But now I see that the John Paul II-Vatican II Church departs more and more from this Catholic Orthodox faith. I was reading this article written by a traditional Roman priest comparing this Church with Plant Pluto, which will be out of the Solar system "soon". This is the modern Roman Church. This is why I'm so respectful of traditional Roman Catholicism.

And we must accept that even ROCOR Bishops and theologians have respect for Pope St. Pius X and many of his predecessors, who in spite of their extreme ambition of supremacy and power, were enough conscious of our differences and had enough moral courage to defend that outside the Church there is no salvation (as they mentioned this in their documents regarding Ecumenism, stating that protestantism was also attacking and infiltrating Roman catholics!).

Even when Orthodoxy seems some kind of divided, the liturgy, the mysteries have preserved all their holliness and ancient character and there are many Bishops who will never let strange ideas or reforms to appear.
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2003, 11:32:28 PM »

Carpy, the Orthodox Church doesn't recognize even the Council of Florence as "Ecumenical," as you well know.  The Orthodox bishops were forced to repudiate everything they had "signed off on" at Florence upon their return home ("Better the Turkish turban than the Papal tiara," as the saying goes).  The Eastern laos, i.e., the People of God, never accepted the ecumenicity of Florence.  The Orthodox do not recognize any of the Councils of the West as "Ecumenical" or binding on the Orthodox since the Western Schism of 1054 AD from the Orthodox.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2003, 11:40:23 PM »

Dear Hypo

You mean none of them were ecumenical!!??  I don't know how I'm going to break it to JP2!!!  But hey we invited you guys to both Vatican 1 and 2 maybe even to Trent (though I'm not sure about this one...did we invite you or the Prots).  You even showed up to Vatican2!  It still doesn't count?  

Oh well.  

Carpy
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2003, 11:49:03 PM »

Carp,

You have such a warped and strange view of the history of the Church I really don't know where to begin....
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #38 on: November 05, 2003, 11:51:49 PM »

Mexican

I want to make it clear I'm not trying to convert you.  But what makes you say that the RCC is "departing more and more from the Catholic Orthodox faith"?

As far as no salvation outside the Church...Boniface VII has sure caused a lot of problems with this.  Like a good little papist I'll have to check my catechism and get back to you.

Just to clarify though it's not JP2's church or Vatican 2's church.  The 2nd Vatican Council was our most recent council and (at least in RC ecclesiology) the Church is Jesus Christ's JP2 is just minding the store.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 05, 2003, 11:52:49 PM »

Protestants and Eastern Orthodox were invited to send "observers" to Vatican II as a courtesy gesture, C-R.  That's all whichever Orthodox representing their Churches at Vatican II were: OBSERVERS.   I think you already know this.  Perhaps you are confusing the Protestant observers at Vatican II with "Council Fathers"?  Grin

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #40 on: November 05, 2003, 11:56:34 PM »

Nektarios

You'll have to forgive me my church history has been warped by my papist upbringing.  Perhaps you can re-educate me.

CR
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #41 on: November 05, 2003, 11:59:05 PM »

Hypo

Some of the Council Fathers acted like they were the Prot observers. We probably would've done better listening to some of the observers.  

UH OH!  I hope the Holy Office doesn't read this post I could be drummed out of the RCC

CR
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #42 on: November 06, 2003, 12:11:17 AM »

Mexican,

Just an FYI I found this in one of the Vatican 2 documents

    "For they who without their own fault do not
know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in
practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain
eternal salvation."

This is from Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.  I can probably find more if you are interested.  

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 06, 2003, 12:30:21 AM »

Some of the Council Fathers acted like they were the Prot observers. We probably would've done better listening to some of the observers.  

UH OH!  I hope the Holy Office doesn't read this post I could be drummed out of the RCC

LOL!

C-R, to be fair, there were a few (very few) Catholic Council Fathers at Vatican II who had the respect of the Orthodox and who spoke for the Orthodox observers.  The one that was most prominent and comes immediately to mind was the late Melkite Greek-Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Maximos IV Cardinal Hakim.  I can't think of any others at the moment.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #44 on: November 06, 2003, 12:45:37 AM »

"For they who without their own fault do not
know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere
heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in
practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain
eternal salvation."


But CR, is the above statement reconcilable with the following, from the Council of Florence?


"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."


Wouldn't you think that, if the Council of Florence was legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit as it claims, a qualification or clause would've been given along the same lines as the above statement from Vatican II? After all, Councils are the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. Pope Leo III basically said that the 'Filioque' clause was deliberately not included in the Creed on the basis of divine inspiration. The Florentine definition certainly seems to exclude the concession of allowing the 'invincibly ignorant' a chance at salvation.  

« Last Edit: November 06, 2003, 12:57:59 AM by Byzantino » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.123 seconds with 72 queries.