OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 06:25:25 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Ecumenical Council and the Filioque  (Read 4081 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
NMHS
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: UOC
Posts: 184


« on: October 03, 2009, 01:24:54 AM »

Help me on the history question if you don't mind?

According to what I have read and listened to this is my understanding of one of the conflicts of the Filioque.  Hopefully I have this right and I am sure if I don't you will correct me.........  During one of the Ecumencial councils wasn't it decided upon that no one could add to the creeds unless there was another Ecumenical council?  If this is the case then why did the western church allow the infultration of the Filioque?  Did the first infultration come from Africa? 

Thanks Caleb
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,458



« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2009, 01:40:43 AM »

Help me on the history question if you don't mind?

According to what I have read and listened to this is my understanding of one of the conflicts of the Filioque.  Hopefully I have this right and I am sure if I don't you will correct me.........  During one of the Ecumencial councils wasn't it decided upon that no one could add to the creeds unless there was another Ecumenical council?  If this is the case then why did the western church allow the infultration of the Filioque?  Did the first infultration come from Africa? 

Thanks Caleb

The Second and Third Council said no change, ever, to the Creed.  The infiltration came from Spain.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2009, 05:30:09 AM »

The question of Filioque is very delicate and needs some study here, so that you might understand the question in its depths.
First of all, the Latin and Greek traditions of the Church Fathers were originally in full agreement and mutually complementary. The Greek Fathers, being used to read the Scriptures in the original language, read the sentence from Jesus "But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. " (John 15:26) they noticed the original verb for proceedth, i.e. "Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ παρὰκλητος, ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρά τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ παρά τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ·". This verb means something like "to spring out from", "to be originated". When the original Creed approved of at Nicaea was to be expanded at the Second Ecumenical Council, the Church Fathers incorporated this sentence in the text regarding the Holy Spirit, in order to affirm - from a certain Biblical authority - what was known of the Paraclete: that he was God originated from God the Father. The same expression was often completed by other Fathers using the addition "through the Son".
Meanwhile, there was a secondary concept of procession forming in the Latin and Alexandrian traditions. This is not the same as the procession of origin which is established as a dogma at Constantinople I. St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son" using the verb "proienai". This form means something like "to be sent forth", and was similar to the original Latin form "procedere". But here's the main problem. The Latin Fathers were correctly using the verb "procedere" in the cyrilline sense, and we have proofs of this from st. Ambrose of Milan. Yet, this verb was also used incorrectly to translate the verb ἐκπορεύεται in the Creed, creating a confusion, a victim of which was st. Augustine of Hippo, who felt that - according to the Latin tradition - the Creed developed in Constantinople was right but yet incomplete. Augustine affirmed originally a position similar to the Greek "through the Son" when he wrote that the Spirit "proceedth from the Father principaliter (by principle) and from the Son secondarily". Yet, he confused the proper individuality of the Paraclete with the common "theotes" (=divinity) of the Father and the Son, and more precisely with God's energy called Love. This was an unprecedented error which was to damage RC theology at a later time.
Anyway, the synod of Constantinople was granted an ecumenical authority at Ephesus, and this council reaffirmed the ecumenicity of the Creed "of Nicaea" (in its expanded form, of course) and the impossibility to modify it outside of an ecumenical context.
Meanwhile in Spain was convened the anti-Arian synod of Toledo. Spain was being delivered from the Arian cancer and was alligning to mainstream Catholicity, so they condemned the submission of the Son to the Father affirming, in a legitimate Latin formula, the "procession" of the Spirit from Father and Son as it was meant by st. Ambrose too. Nevertheless, this version of the Creed spread to Gaul and was to be later considered by Charlemagne to be the only full Creed of the Church in the 9th century.
The Church of Rome, while approving both the Greek and Latin creeds, had no tradition of singing the Creed at Mass. At the 7th Ecumenical council, held in Nicaea, the Church Fathers reaffirmed the Creed in its original Greek form, and added as an explanation that by "proceedth from the Father" the expression "through the Son" was implied. On the base of preserving Church unity, pope st. Leo III - a valid successor of st. Peter - opposed to the claims of Charlemagne who wanted the Creed with Filioque to be introduced in Rome, so he made two tablets be hung in Rome, exposing the original Greek Creed and its Filioque-less translation in Latin. The question seemed to be set once and for all, but it wasn't so. Rome was later pressed by the Holy Roman Empire (presumably for political reasons) to affirm the Filioque clause and add it to the Greek Creed. The leader of the Greek anti-filioquist party was st. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, who was deposed by the Pope and replaced by a certain Ignatius appointed by the Roman Pontiff. In 870 a council held by only 12 bishops and some papal legates reaffirmed the papal decisions, and the two branches of the church underwent a temporary breach. This synod is known to RCs as the "8th Ecumenical council". Only ten years later, a counter-council was held, also in Constantinople, with some 380 bishops and papal legates present. This one condemned the dispositions of the previous 870 AD synod, and imposed that no addition, omission or alteration of the Creed of Nicaea (but the text given is that of Constantinople I!) could be incorporated. The same synod stopped the claims of the Pope for super-jurisdiction and re-enthroned Photius on his patriarchal see. The Horos (=decree) of the Council was translated in Latin and read by pope John VIII, who was benevolent towards the Easteners (he showed great understanding for the cause of Cyril and Methodius, apostles of the Slavs), signed for the reinstallment of Photius, thus giving ecumenical authority to the Synod.
Nevertheless, in 1012 AD pope Benedict VIII was enthroned, and he was asked at the crowing of the new Western Emperor to sing the Creed with Filioque, and he did. In 1054 AD, during a sedevacante, the Latin dogma of Filioque was even imposed by cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida to patriarch Michael Cerularius, who was excommunicated, and a counter-excommunication followed. Despite all attempts of dialogue from the Eastern part, in 1098 AD (the year preceeding the first crusade!) pope Urban II convened a pseudo-council at Bari, Italy, and finally sanctioned the heresy of Filioque and papal supremacy, and all dialogue ended once and for all.

There are at least four reasons why the Orthodox reject the Filioque clause.
1)The Filioque is uncanonical. The original Creed was affirmed as unchangeable at Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Constantinople IV, and the only allowed catechetical explanation/addition allowed is the formula "through the Son" sanctioned at Nicaea II. Changing the Creed is against the common Canon Law of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.
2)The Filioque is not Biblical and Traditional. There is no single verse in Scripture or in the writings of the Church Fathers where the Greek verb "ἐκπορεύεται" was combined with the Filioque, while the expression "from the Father" is clearly written in John's Gospel.
3)The Filioque is heretical. To proceed, in its Greek original, means "to be originated". The purpose of the Creed is to define the "only" arché (principle) of the Paraclete's personality and divinity, what the Church Fathers called "Monarchy of the Father" within the Trinity. Also, confusing the Spirit with the common love (an energy) or nature (divinity, or theotes) of the Father and the Son is also a serious theological error.
4)The Filioque was used as a political and religious instrument from the West to affirm the superiority of the Pope over the other bishops and a supposed divine authority to the Holy Roman Emperor over the legitimate Roman Emperor of Constantinople. This also menaced the concilary nature of the Church in defining dogmas.

Hope this helps,   
in Christ,   Alex
« Last Edit: October 03, 2009, 05:31:42 AM by AlexanderOfBergamo » Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2009, 12:39:22 PM »

good post.

Here is the prohibition from the Council of Ephesus,the third Ecumenical Council 431:

“    "It is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa. But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized".[49]    ”

The "filioque" is seen by the Orthodox as an anti-trinitarian heresy.It affects the way the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit relates , and the equality between the three hypostasis.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,020



« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2009, 05:42:50 PM »

A relevant scriptural statement in support for the canon of the Symbol of Faith (the Creed):

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." (Gospel of St. John, Chapter 15, Verse 26.)

There's nothing here that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Christ goes out of His way to explain that while He will send the Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Truth," "proceeds from the Father;" only.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2009, 05:46:08 AM »

A relevant scriptural statement in support for the canon of the Symbol of Faith (the Creed):

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." (Gospel of St. John, Chapter 15, Verse 26.)

There's nothing here that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Christ goes out of His way to explain that while He will send the Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Truth," "proceeds from the Father;" only.

Yeah, in fact it strikes me when I see that Protestants, with their Sola Scriptura exegetical system, do not reject Filioque as an heresy: it's the most Biblically unsound doctrine ever forged, and even the easiest to disprove.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
NMHS
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: UOC
Posts: 184


« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2009, 10:39:19 AM »

Thanks for all the great information, I will be back soon with more questions. Caleb
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2009, 01:25:19 PM »

A relevant scriptural statement in support for the canon of the Symbol of Faith (the Creed):

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." (Gospel of St. John, Chapter 15, Verse 26.)

There's nothing here that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Christ goes out of His way to explain that while He will send the Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Truth," "proceeds from the Father;" only.

Yeah, in fact it strikes me when I see that Protestants, with their Sola Scriptura exegetical system, do not reject Filioque as an heresy: it's the most Biblically unsound doctrine ever forged, and even the easiest to disprove.

In Christ,   Alex
Ok, show me.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2009, 02:09:19 PM »

 Roll Eyes What should I show you?
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2009, 02:24:19 PM »

Roll Eyes What should I show you?
That its "easy" to disprove the filioque from the bible.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2009, 02:56:11 PM »

A relevant scriptural statement in support for the canon of the Symbol of Faith (the Creed):

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." (Gospel of St. John, Chapter 15, Verse 26.)

There's nothing here that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. Christ goes out of His way to explain that while He will send the Holy Spirit, "the Spirit of Truth," "proceeds from the Father;" only.

Yeah, in fact it strikes me when I see that Protestants, with their Sola Scriptura exegetical system, do not reject Filioque as an heresy: it's the most Biblically unsound doctrine ever forged, and even the easiest to disprove.

In Christ,   Alex
Ok, show me.

In the context he's speaking of (Protestants who rely on a Sola Scriptura paradigm), he's already done so by quoting the relevant verse--per Christ, "the Spirit proceeds from the Father". To justify the Filioque you have to go beyond the actual text of Scripture.



Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2009, 03:39:12 PM »

Aaaaah...
Easily disproved: the literal expression "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" doesn't occur in the Scriptures, so it is not scriptural.
Of course I also found the motivation for their acceptance of the Filioque: to proceed=to send is their equation, so they don't even make a little study of the word, which clearly shows how poor and contradictory the Sola Scriptura method is.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2009, 04:45:12 PM »

Aaaaah...
Easily disproved: the literal expression "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" doesn't occur in the Scriptures, so it is not scriptural.
Of course I also found the motivation for their acceptance of the Filioque: to proceed=to send is their equation, so they don't even make a little study of the word, which clearly shows how poor and contradictory the Sola Scriptura method is.
Oh, I see you meant only if we strictly interperate scriputer according to its most literal methodology. I was gonna say... lol I actually think that there are many reasons  to accept the filoque, given what the scriptures say. That being said, I accept both the Latin and Byzantine theological approaches as long as neither is taken to strictly.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,956



« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2009, 05:31:13 PM »

^What?  Then, in your eyes, should there be no separation between the Orthodox and Catholics?  Besides, I fail to see, how both Protestants and Catholics can say that there is no difference of confession if one person should say filioque and the other doesn't.  That's the kind of ecumenical b.s. that does nothing to bridge the differences.  Besides, if the Latin side of theological appraoch isn't to be taken too seriously, why do you (and I'm referring to RCs in general) that the Orthodox need to accept, uncompromisingly, the status of the pope as the supreme authority?
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2009, 10:55:50 PM »

^What?  Then, in your eyes, should there be no separation between the Orthodox and Catholics?  Besides, I fail to see, how both Protestants and Catholics can say that there is no difference of confession if one person should say filioque and the other doesn't.  That's the kind of ecumenical b.s. that does nothing to bridge the differences.  Besides, if the Latin side of theological appraoch isn't to be taken too seriously, why do you (and I'm referring to RCs in general) that the Orthodox need to accept, uncompromisingly, the status of the pope as the supreme authority?
Let me clarify: I do think that there are some serious problems with modern Eastern Orthodox theology. That being said, I don't think an Eastern approach to to theology necessarily leads to the modern situation within the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2009, 08:23:42 AM »

It must also be said that in the Latin scholastics, the first one who evidenced (in an accepting way) both the expressions "proceeds from the Father and the Son" and "proceeds from the Father through the Son" was Thomas Aquinas. He explained how both models (in a RC theology, of course) were compatible and mutually complementary. This explains why RCs don't feel any problem with the Eastern Catholic refusal to add Filioque in the Symbol (until they understand this as if a "through the Son" is meant), and also the contrary approach of us Orthodox who believe that words "make" doctrines - in the sense that a dogma can and should be defined with precise words, and every alternative definition could bring confusion and even heresy. Until these two models of dogmatic definition exist, there is no possibility for intercommunion.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2009, 11:27:22 AM »

It must also be said that in the Latin scholastics, the first one who evidenced (in an accepting way) both the expressions "proceeds from the Father and the Son" and "proceeds from the Father through the Son" was Thomas Aquinas. He explained how both models (in a RC theology, of course) were compatible and mutually complementary. This explains why RCs don't feel any problem with the Eastern Catholic refusal to add Filioque in the Symbol (until they understand this as if a "through the Son" is meant), and also the contrary approach of us Orthodox who believe that words "make" doctrines - in the sense that a dogma can and should be defined with precise words, and every alternative definition could bring confusion and even heresy. Until these two models of dogmatic definition exist, there is no possibility for intercommunion.

In Christ,   Alex
I agree that language is important when defining dogmas. That doesn't mean however that we can't be expressing the same idea with different language. Look, even the EOs and OO have agree that both groups profess the same Christology even though they use language that would be considered contradictory.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 931


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2009, 11:30:41 AM »

Look, even the EOs and OO have agree that both groups profess the same Christology even though they use language that would be considered contradictory.

This "EO" doesn't think so.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2009, 11:31:23 AM »

Look, even the EOs and OO have agree that both groups profess the same Christology even though they use language that would be considered contradictory.

This "EO" doesn't think so.
Doesn't think what?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 931


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2009, 11:32:51 AM »

Look, even the EOs and OO have agree that both groups profess the same Christology even though they use language that would be considered contradictory.

This "EO" doesn't think so.
Doesn't think what?

That Orthodox (or "EO") Christology is the same as non-Chalcedonian Christology using different terminology.  Some Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians feel that way, but many of us don't.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2009, 11:33:37 AM »

Look, even the EOs and OO have agree that both groups profess the same Christology even though they use language that would be considered contradictory.

This "EO" doesn't think so.
Doesn't think what?

That Orthodox (or "EO") Christology is the same as non-Chalcedonian Christology using different terminology.  Some Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians feel that way, but many of us don't.
Seems like most do though.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Orual
Orthodoxy = 7, not 3
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Sunday Morning Costume Parade
Posts: 931


I'm just here for the food.


« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2009, 11:36:20 AM »

Look, even the EOs and OO have agree that both groups profess the same Christology even though they use language that would be considered contradictory.

This "EO" doesn't think so.
Doesn't think what?

That Orthodox (or "EO") Christology is the same as non-Chalcedonian Christology using different terminology.  Some Orthodox and non-Chalcedonians feel that way, but many of us don't.
Seems like most do though.

Because those who feel that way tend to get involved in ecumenical dialogues, so they get heard and repeated a lot more.  Believe me, a lot of Orthodox do not feel that way.  No offense or attempt at derailment, I just wanted to point that out.
Logged

He spoke it as kindly and heartily as could be; as if a man dashed a gallon of cold water in your broth and never doubted you'd like it all the better. 

- C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces
f.k.a. Matron.a
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2009, 11:57:08 AM »

Orual is partially right. The OO don't (up to now) acknowledge the two wills and two energies in Christ, so until this doesn't occur, the OO definitions are incomplete, or at least they are still imperfect and misleading from an EO point of view: otherwise, a full reunion would have already occured (a thing I hope for the near future).
Anyway, I would underline that his topic is centered on the Filioque controversy, and not on EO-OO theological expressions of the Christian Faith, so I'd invite to keep the discussion on topic.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2009, 12:00:57 PM »

Orual is partially right. The OO don't (up to now) acknowledge the two wills and two energies in Christ, so until this doesn't occur, the OO definitions are incomplete, or at least they are still imperfect and misleading from an EO point of view: otherwise, a full reunion would have already occured (a thing I hope for the near future).
Anyway, I would underline that his topic is centered on the Filioque controversy, and not on EO-OO theological expressions of the Christian Faith, so I'd invite to keep the discussion on topic.

In Christ,   Alex
Its not irrelevant becuase of the similarity in the issue.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2009, 12:18:38 PM »

Yes, but I wanted the temporary deviation not to become an issue in this thread. I know of your good intentions, and I understand your analogy, don't worry. I also hope you might understand the entity of the difference, from an EO perspective of course, in the two cases. I would also submit to your attention also that it is still easier to dialogue with the OO (at least in our times) because of the common background we share as "Easteners" which makes the two churches preserve, for example, the sacraments, rites and ecclesiology almost identical in form and understanding. Also, even if the myaphisite-dyophysite theological controversy was a cause to schism, it must be said that both sides have remained almost identical to their counterparts of 1600 years ago, which helps us exhalting our common roots, a thing which has become very hard to do with the Roman Catholic Church, due to 1000 years of Latin Scholastics and new official dogmas proclaimed unilaterally by the Vatican and which are unprecedented and unparallelled in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. We might say, in other words, that in order not to exclude a reunion, both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians have refused to proclaim anything new without a reunion (if not willingly, at least de facto), while the autonomous unilateral changes in the Latin Church have deepened the divergences between your church and ours in a way that they can't understand each other anymore. Your definitions speak Latin - not only de facto as a chosen language for theology, but also as a cultural way to define doctrine which is completely foreign and incomprehensible, full of technicalities and legalisms the more "mystical" Easteners just can't approach without diffidence. That's why we just "can't" embrace a double theology. It's not us who must accept your parallel mindset... it's you RCs who must redefine your definitions according to the original 7 Ecumenical Councils - who spoke in Eastern theology.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2009, 12:53:28 PM »

Yes, but I wanted the temporary deviation not to become an issue in this thread. I know of your good intentions, and I understand your analogy, don't worry. I also hope you might understand the entity of the difference, from an EO perspective of course, in the two cases. I would also submit to your attention also that it is still easier to dialogue with the OO (at least in our times) because of the common background we share as "Easteners" which makes the two churches preserve, for example, the sacraments, rites and ecclesiology almost identical in form and understanding. Also, even if the myaphisite-dyophysite theological controversy was a cause to schism, it must be said that both sides have remained almost identical to their counterparts of 1600 years ago, which helps us exhalting our common roots, a thing which has become very hard to do with the Roman Catholic Church, due to 1000 years of Latin Scholastics and new official dogmas proclaimed unilaterally by the Vatican and which are unprecedented and unparallelled in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. We might say, in other words, that in order not to exclude a reunion, both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians have refused to proclaim anything new without a reunion (if not willingly, at least de facto), while the autonomous unilateral changes in the Latin Church have deepened the divergences between your church and ours in a way that they can't understand each other anymore. Your definitions speak Latin - not only de facto as a chosen language for theology, but also as a cultural way to define doctrine which is completely foreign and incomprehensible, full of technicalities and legalisms the more "mystical" Easteners just can't approach without diffidence. That's why we just "can't" embrace a double theology. It's not us who must accept your parallel mindset... it's you RCs who must redefine your definitions according to the original 7 Ecumenical Councils - who spoke in Eastern theology.

In Christ,   Alex
Yawn. Typical polemics.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2009, 08:18:10 AM »

This is not polemics, this is a fact. it is historical data that the Roman Church has changed the ordinary form of administration for the sacraments, and that new dogmas were formulated in the West. New words had been invented such as purgatory, transubstantiation and immaculate conception. These words didn't exist in the East. While the East invented no new words - possibly to keep dialogue open - the RCs had no minimal intentions to dialogue with us: what mattered was their own doctrine, the Orthodox might have gone to hell for having not approved every single word in a dogmatic definition.
There is a basic rule of semantics: a direct correspondance between sign and the concept behind it. In the East this is even more important then you might guess. Changing a sign also changes the meaning, and you changed many over time, be it a ritual sign (such as immersion exchanged with infusion) or a doctrinal sign (such as the newly-invented word "purgatory"). It doesnt' matter it the concept is true or not. What matters is the choice of words. I don't see the definitions of the Latin scholastics to be accurate. Saying that Mary has always been immaculate is sufficient, and that she was so created it doesn't matter. Saying that the souls of the departed are helped by our prayers is sufficient, saying that this purification occurs in a separate place or state named purgatory is useless. Saying that the Son has received the Spirit from the Father is sufficient, saying that they are co-causes of the Spirit is superfluous, and I think even dangerous. Read my signature: st. Vincent of Lérins established how to determine a doctrine, and consent everywhere, always and by all is the core exegetical method. The Latin definitions have been developped by the Latins alone, with little presence from the Easteners: this affects the catholicity of the Latin doctrines not in their general concepts (the purity of Mary, prayers for the departed, or the Son-Holy Spirit relationship) but in their definitive formulas. Make a step back to make these doctrines "understandable" and "digestible" to the Eastern eyes, and a dialogue would become (maybe) possible.

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2009, 07:25:21 PM »

Make a step back to make these doctrines "understandable" and "digestible" to the Eastern eyes, and a dialogue would become (maybe) possible.

In Christ,  Alex
I think that the modern EO paradigm includes too much anti-latin/western prejudice for this to be possible. I think such dialogue can only occur years from now when old prejudices might be dropped in favor of Charity.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2009, 07:31:23 AM »

Which Charity? The same you violated when you incorporated Filioque unilaterally in an ECUMENICAL creed?

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2009, 01:32:01 PM »

Which Charity? The same you violated when you incorporated Filioque unilaterally in an ECUMENICAL creed?

In Christ,  Alex
See, that's a good example of this anti-Latin sentiment. I agree with Papist (Shocked) that we ought to come to an empty table and work out our differences as we are now, without historical baggage, to come to a place where Rome can again be united to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What's done is done, but it can be undone, if we approach the table without prejudice.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2009, 01:32:12 PM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2009, 02:07:58 PM »

Which Charity? The same you violated when you incorporated Filioque unilaterally in an ECUMENICAL creed?

In Christ,  Alex
See, that's a good example of this anti-Latin sentiment. I agree with Papist (Shocked) that we ought to come to an empty table and work out our differences as we are now, without historical baggage, to come to a place where Rome can again be united to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What's done is done, but it can be undone, if we approach the table without prejudice.
We can't work out our differences. Rome must come back to Orthodoxy. No compromise in faith is permissible, and if reunion with Rome is based on the same principles of the Council of Florence (charity WITHOUT common faith), I'll stay outside of the false church as st. Mark of Ephesus did.

In Christ,  Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2009, 02:55:35 PM »

Do you believe Rome can return home?
Rome to return to Orthodoxy, and the Orthodox Church?
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
NMHS
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: UOC
Posts: 184


« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2009, 11:04:29 PM »

So in a somewhat short answer does this sound right?  The Filioque was added to the creed by the RCC, but at the time it was added, the definition according to the RCC meant the same.  Then as time went on the meaning of the Filiouque changed because of meanings of the terminology on the RC.  So in short, most or all RC today believe the creed as stated with the Filiqoue, but at the time the filiqoue was added all christian new that the Holy Spirt proceeded from the Father.

I am understanding this right?

Thanks!
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #33 on: October 09, 2009, 01:19:42 AM »

Which Charity? The same you violated when you incorporated Filioque unilaterally in an ECUMENICAL creed?

In Christ,  Alex
See, that's a good example of this anti-Latin sentiment. I agree with Papist (Shocked) that we ought to come to an empty table and work out our differences as we are now, without historical baggage, to come to a place where Rome can again be united to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What's done is done, but it can be undone, if we approach the table without prejudice.
We can't work out our differences. Rome must come back to Orthodoxy. No compromise in faith is permissible, and if reunion with Rome is based on the same principles of the Council of Florence (charity WITHOUT common faith), I'll stay outside of the false church as st. Mark of Ephesus did.

In Christ,  Alex
I think that Y  wants taht in the end as well. He's just saying that it won't happen by brow beating people or behaving in a triumphalistic manner. One of the things that turns me off the most about the EO Church is being told what horrid little heretic I am all the time.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 09, 2009, 01:41:15 AM »

I have to agree with Y too.  Honestly, I am surprised the Roman Catholic Church continues to take part in any dialogue.  All they ever get is "proselytising", the filioque, the fourth crusade, etc., thrown in their face again and again by bitter curmudgeons. 

Personally, I am glad to see the nature of relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church.  Imagine, basic courtesy in Church politics...
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2009, 07:36:20 AM »

Do you believe Rome can return home?
Rome to return to Orthodoxy, and the Orthodox Church?

It could. Jesus also prayed for that reunion, in a certain sense, when he prayed at the Last Supper. How that could happen, I don't know... but I have to hope anyway.

I have to agree with Y too.  Honestly, I am surprised the Roman Catholic Church continues to take part in any dialogue.  All they ever get is "proselytising", the filioque, the fourth crusade, etc., thrown in their face again and again by bitter curmudgeons. 

Personally, I am glad to see the nature of relations between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church.  Imagine, basic courtesy in Church politics...

The same good ecumenical relationship can be hold with Jews and Muslims too. Does that mean we should find a common doctrine for reunion? Afterall, they claim to believe in the same God as we do, don't they?

If I act by anger, it is because of the VERY personal hatred I find for the Vatican institutions. As an Italian, I have been enslaved in the mechanisms of a Catholic society which looks (hypocritically, I would say) at other religions as if they were great sinners just for renouncing the more "natural" condition of being Catholic. How would I be supposed to be kind with the same people who look at me as if I were "weird" for having left my religion?
I personally heard so many inventions on the Orthodox Church - inventions I have never been able to conferm as true - that this is the proof of a sort of ostrakism. The fact is that I don't want to compromise my faith. If the Orthodox Church enters communion with Rome with some sort of TOLERATION for dogmas such as Filioque or Papal Infallibility, I would think that the Orthodox Church doesn't exist anymore, and that Satan has finally prevailed.

In Christ,   Alex

PS: The attitude of the EP on this issue speaks for itself: allowing prayer in an Orthodox Church with an heterodox patriarch of the West is as dangerous as for the Pope kissing the Qu'ran (and John Paul II did it!)
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2009, 11:09:14 AM »

The same good ecumenical relationship can be hold with Jews and Muslims too.  Does that mean we should find a common doctrine for reunion? Afterall, they claim to believe in the same God as we do, don't they?

I'm not saying that the Orthodox Church should white-wash the difference and declare a reunion, whether it is with the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims or Jews.  I am saying that with a Church they hold a common history for centuries, with a Church they do share much in common with, with people they are supposed to be brothers with, civility and proper discourse should take place.  Whether it is by certain hierarchs, priest, laymen, etc., there is a air of "never forgiving" their Christian brothers for past sins.  It is that I find absolutely disgusting.

Quote
If I act by anger, it is because of the VERY personal hatred I find for the Vatican institutions. As an Italian, I have been enslaved in the mechanisms of a Catholic society which looks (hypocritically, I would say) at other religions as if they were great sinners just for renouncing the more "natural" condition of being Catholic.
The Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchs are far from perfect, but the same goes for many members of the Orthodox Church.  Still though, even if you "hate" the Vatican, the anti-Latin sentiment you can find spewed on this forum, or in real life, goes further than attacking the Vatican, it attacks Roman Catholics.  If you believe the Orthodox Church is truly the one True Church, than by pushing people away by attacking an institution that they hold dear, either religiously or culturally, is going to get you know where.  It only leads to resentment and closed mindedness.  You find members who say they want Vatican City bombed or all the Roman Catholic parishes destroyed in their country, but of course, they don't "hate Catholics".  Yeah...  Now, I'm not saying you are like that, but when people make it sound like the Orthodox Church is not even willing to forgive, nor sit down and talk, it gives a terrible view of Orthodox.

Quote
How would I be supposed to be kind with the same people who look at me as if I were "weird" for having left my religion?

That is just life.  I've left my religion too, and my family is culturally French and Friulian, I was from a Roman Catholic dominated region of Canada, etc.  Things aren't as monolithic over here though, and well, the French have a long history of lax relations with the Vatican.  Grin  I've had friends, family members, etc., more or less call me crazy, possessed, etc.  When I have visited family abroad, though I love Church architecture and know the "motions" of the Mass, I wouldn't commune.  Looks of weirdness and even pity from family and old Nonnas alike.  I'm technically a schismatic then, but it doesn't bother me.  There are always going to be people who look at me weird, whether it is for my religious beliefs, political beliefs, or just because I look funny.

Quote
I personally heard so many inventions on the Orthodox Church - inventions I have never been able to conferm as true - that this is the proof of a sort of ostrakism.
Which is not much different than inventions and outright lies members of the Orthodox Church will spread about Roman Catholics.  Pope "worship", all RC priests are paedophiles, ad nauseum.

Quote
The fact is that I don't want to compromise my faith. If the Orthodox Church enters communion with Rome with some sort of TOLERATION for dogmas such as Filioque or Papal Infallibility, I would think that the Orthodox Church doesn't exist anymore, and that Satan has finally prevailed.

I am talking more about the toleration of the the people and general discussion and understanding of dogmas.  We haven't even reached that step.


Quote
PS: The attitude of the EP on this issue speaks for itself: allowing prayer in an Orthodox Church with an heterodox patriarch of the West is as dangerous as for the Pope kissing the Qu'ran (and John Paul II did it!)

I disagree, but well, I'm guessing you already assumed I would.  Probably one of those these we will have to agree to disagree on.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2009, 11:16:31 AM »

I'm not saying that the Orthodox Church should white-wash the difference and declare a reunion, whether it is with the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims or Jews.  I am saying that with a Church they hold a common history for centuries, with a Church they do share much in common with, with people they are supposed to be brothers with, civility and proper discourse should take place. 

Civility in discourse is one thing.  Compromise is another.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.
Logged
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2009, 01:04:42 PM »

Civility in discourse is one thing.  Compromise is another.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

Orthodox don't even like to compromise with each other on minor things, I doubt you have to worry. Tongue
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2009, 02:04:30 PM »

Orthodox don't even like to compromise with each other on minor things

Since you are so keen with the Orthodox criticism as of late, why don't you elaborate?

Logged
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2009, 02:47:04 PM »

Quote
I'm not saying that the Orthodox Church should white-wash the difference and declare a reunion, whether it is with the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims or Jews.  I am saying that with a Church they hold a common history for centuries, with a Church they do share much in common with, with people they are supposed to be brothers with, civility and proper discourse should take place.  Whether it is by certain hierarchs, priest, laymen, etc., there is a air of "never forgiving" their Christian brothers for past sins.  It is that I find absolutely disgusting.
Civil relationships, and even discussions, are welcome. I have continuous confrontations with a RC friend of mine, and I always find well with him because he's very traditionalist and loves the Church Fathers. Keeping the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils as a core of common beliefs, and forgetting for a while the other differences, is very useful, and makes us understand each other, which doesn't mean we have to consider as members of the same religion. All my references above concerned REUNION, and the fact that many RCs think of our refusal for reunion as a lack of charity (see above) and not as a will to reject a weak reunion. That's all.
Quote
The Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchs are far from perfect, but the same goes for many members of the Orthodox Church.  Still though, even if you "hate" the Vatican, the anti-Latin sentiment you can find spewed on this forum, or in real life, goes further than attacking the Vatican, it attacks Roman Catholics.  If you believe the Orthodox Church is truly the one True Church, than by pushing people away by attacking an institution that they hold dear, either religiously or culturally, is going to get you know where.  It only leads to resentment and closed mindedness.  You find members who say they want Vatican City bombed or all the Roman Catholic parishes destroyed in their country, but of course, they don't "hate Catholics".  Yeah...  Now, I'm not saying you are like that, but when people make it sound like the Orthodox Church is not even willing to forgive, nor sit down and talk, it gives a terrible view of Orthodox.
It would be a terrible loss for the world if all RC parishes were destroyed. I'm still hoping for them to be used in the future by the Orthodox believers of the Western Patriarchate, under a future Pope. Who knows? LOL Also, I attack personally a religious authority which has seeked (and still seeks) for temporal power more then for the spiritual. I know the Orthodox Church did the same sometimes in the past - and for this I also criticize the EOC - but at least the Phanar isn't an indipendent state with its currency, banks and other earthly interests. Also, as an Orthodox I am bound to the infallibility of the Church collectively, and I can freely criticize the hierarchs who do wrong, a thing a Roman Catholic can't do with the only final authority - the Pope.

Quote
I am talking more about the toleration of the the people and general discussion and understanding of dogmas.  We haven't even reached that step.

I tolerate everybody, but this thread was discussing Filioque as an obstacle to reunion, SO we're not speaking of religious freedom, but of religious truth.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2009, 02:48:11 PM »

I'm not saying that the Orthodox Church should white-wash the difference and declare a reunion, whether it is with the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims or Jews.  I am saying that with a Church they hold a common history for centuries, with a Church they do share much in common with, with people they are supposed to be brothers with, civility and proper discourse should take place. 

Civility in discourse is one thing.  Compromise is another.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

May st. Mark really guide us to all truth and help us resist when we lack faith.

In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2009, 03:00:36 PM »

May st. Mark really guide us to all truth and help us resist when we lack faith.

Amen.
Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2009, 05:16:57 PM »

I'm not saying that the Orthodox Church should white-wash the difference and declare a reunion, whether it is with the Roman Catholic Church, Muslims or Jews.  I am saying that with a Church they hold a common history for centuries, with a Church they do share much in common with, with people they are supposed to be brothers with, civility and proper discourse should take place. 

Civility in discourse is one thing.  Compromise is another.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

May st. Mark really guide us to all truth and help us resist when we lack faith.

In Christ,    Alex
Resist what?
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2009, 03:08:51 AM »

Persist in faith, and keep astray from temptation... maybe I expressed badly because "resistere" and "persistere" are almost synonims in Italian, but since Mickey has understood what I meant, I think it's you who are provoking me.
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
Tags: filioque The Creed ecumenical councils 
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.164 seconds with 72 queries.