OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 06:00:46 PM *
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 4 5 6 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FUNDAMENTAL DOGMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CATHOLICISM AND ORTHODOXY  (Read 28076 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« on: April 22, 2004, 01:00:05 AM »

Demetri......thanks for the link!

I have a question....well more of a complaint...and it would be nice if a lot of people would reply. I am sure this question is for the Catholic and Orthodox discussion forum, but it is in regard to "Which Councils are Ecumenical?" By Francis Dvornik, so I thought I'd post it here.

After reading just a few lines into this article I found this:

"Many Catholic leaders think that a dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches should begin as early as possible and hope for positive results since there are no fundamental dogmatic differences between the Roman and Orthodox Churches."

It is amazing how many Catholics I've heard this from. I am truly shocked that so many Catholics, and some Orthodox, think there really are no fundamental dogmatic difference betwen Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If this is the opinion of Dvornik or not, is not the point. I am just really amazed to see this opinion, clearly influenced by the post Vat-II ecumenism, so comon amoung devout Roman Catholics.

To me, it really seems like an ignorant thing to say. Maybe I'm crazy, but it took me 2 hours, when I first began to explore Orthodoxy, to realize there were in fact, serious and fundamental dogmatic differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

So many want to explain everything away with ecumenist lies and fables, the truth seems so simple.

Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibilty, the Filioque, the Agustian view of Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory....all articles of the Catholic faith. All dogmas, all deemed nessicary for salvation by Rome. All of which Orthodoxy rejects. One can go on and on about how we all believe the same thing, but in different words, or expressed differently due to our environments. But when you come down to it Catholicism and Orthodoxy do have fundamental dogmatic differences.

I think it is unfair to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, to dismiss the differences as mere technical difficulties.

I am sure many will disgaree with me, but I think only a fool is so obsessed with unity to ignore such fundamental differences, no matter how good the intentions are.

I'm sure I must be crazy....... but it seems too absurd to deny what seems to be so basic and simple...

THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL DOGMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CATHOLICISM AND ORTHODOXY!

Sorry....had to get that off my chest.....
« Last Edit: April 22, 2004, 01:06:18 AM 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
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2004, 03:03:52 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

Dear Ben,

you have just described what frustrates me most about dialogue with our Catholic brethren. It honestly leaves me wanting to bash my head against the keyboard at times Sad.

John.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2004, 04:37:33 AM »


I'm sure I must be crazy....... but it seems too absurd to deny what seems to be so basic and simple...

THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL DOGMATIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CATHOLICISM AND ORTHODOXY!

Sorry....had to get that off my chest.....

And I am so glad that you did so!
Most of us Orthodox are aware of the real differences that have separated the church in the west from Orthodoxy. But we do NOT revel in superiority, but lament that it is so difficult to even discuss what we know to be error. I was criticized by 'romanbyzantium' for stating that the Orthodox should have done more to prevent the loss of the Church of Rome. But my feelings are real - centuries of glossing over a creeping divergence in the Faith in the west from the unchanging Faith in the east ALLOWED the schism to occur in the first place. Ignoring differences, especially the basic, fundamental ones, in the quest (or back then, to prolong) unity is what made separation possible - inevitable - and subsequent dialogue difficult.
Our respective hierarchs, coming from an apostolic level or plane and with the heavy charges their offices entail which we cannot really imagine, often send us confusing signals ("two-lungs", "Sister Churches"). In reality, we and they know the divide is wide and deep... and sad.
It is not so simple a task as to hold a council and patch things up to '1052' standards of communion.
I imagine that Ben now understands why most Orthodox go into emotional apoplexy at the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome" Shocked...sorry, I had to get that off my chest.  :-

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2004, 12:15:48 PM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

Dear Ben,

you have just described what frustrates me most about dialogue with our Catholic brethren. It honestly leaves me wanting to bash my head against the keyboard at times Sad.

John.

I was starting to think I was the only one who was frequently tempted to bang my head into something when fed this ecumenist "we all believe the same thing" or "there are no dogmatic differences between east and west" crap.
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 #4 on: April 22, 2004, 12:17:20 PM »

I imagine that Ben now understands why most Orthodox go into emotional apoplexy at the phrase "Orthodox in communion with Rome"

I sure do.......
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2004, 03:24:14 PM »

"Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibilty, the Filioque, the Agustian view of Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory....all articles of the Catholic faith. All dogmas, all deemed nessicary for salvation by Rome. All of which Orthodoxy rejects. One can go on and on about how we all believe the same thing, but in different words, or expressed differently due to our environments. But when you come down to it Catholicism and Orthodoxy do have fundamental dogmatic differences."

Papal Infallibility is a true dogamtic difference.  Papal Primacy is not so much the issue as the way it is exercised.  The rest I feel can be worked out and are being worked.  Only hardliners on both sides insist they constitute insurmountable differences of dogma.  For the West held all them long before the Great Schism, so until Papal Primacy got in the way the others were accepted by the East.  For example, the Spanish Church had been reciting the Filioque long before the Schism yet the East did not feel it was an issue worthy of schism until after the Photian/1054 schisms.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Twenty Nine
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 187



« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2004, 04:14:02 PM »

IMO, it goes far beyond "dogmatic" differences.

Say for the sake of argument, both Orthodox and Catholics came to some kind of reconciliation concerning these "dogmatic" differences. Lets say there would be no more discussion on the IC, Original sin, indulgences, etc.

Now, what are we left with? After all the paperwork is done, will the Catholic Church live the life of Orthodoxy? That is what is ultimately important...not "official agreements", but rather a oneness of mind, a oneness of liturgical piety, a oneness in the struggle of fasting and prayer.

It is not that I am not hopeful. But it is a more realistic hope. The Catholic Church is too big for a fruitful reunion. It needs to start with each Catholic, then each Catholic parish, etc.

It is all or nothing and it is not realistic that the Catholic Church can handle this. You can't expect Roman Catholics to start living an Orthodox life if they have not had a personal encounter with Orthodoxy. You can't flip a switch and say you are Orthodox. Orthodoxy is the pearl of great price. It takes lots of struggle, prayer, yearning, obedience and love in order to obtain it.
Logged

Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. - Philippians 4:8
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2004, 04:31:56 PM »

"Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibilty, the Filioque, the Agustian view of Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory....all articles of the Catholic faith. All dogmas, all deemed nessicary for salvation by Rome. All of which Orthodoxy rejects. One can go on and on about how we all believe the same thing, but in different words, or expressed differently due to our environments. But when you come down to it Catholicism and Orthodoxy do have fundamental dogmatic differences."

Papal Infallibility is a true dogamtic difference.  Papal Primacy is not so much the issue as the way it is exercised.  The rest I feel can be worked out and are being worked.  Only hardliners on both sides insist they constitute insurmountable differences of dogma.  For the West held all them long before the Great Schism, so until Papal Primacy got in the way the others were accepted by the East.  For example, the Spanish Church had been reciting the Filioque long before the Schism yet the East did not feel it was an issue worthy of schism until after the Photian/1054 schisms.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance,
Thank you for proving our point.
No we do not believe in the "same thing". Definitions of original sin and salvation are about as fundamental to the faith as possible. And we widely differ on those to start with.
The filoque may have been (wrongly) used in parts of the west for a long time, but did not become a problem until your pope gave in to the pressures, ceased HIS opposition to it, and accepted it. A slight but important nuance in versions of history, no?
There had been growing discomfort with the ever-growing demands of the bishops of Rome to increase their authority. This increase in authority was even looked at sceptically in the west at times. Papal "infallibility" is merely the culmination of the pope "winning" (in the west, after the Reformation tore the church there yet again over the same issue in part).
Of the two dozen other changes or innovations introduced in the west, true, some are more easily dealt with than others, but  many of those 'others' are large as well.
Again, the Vatican communion is a different church from the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Demetri
« Last Edit: April 22, 2004, 04:32:47 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Frobie
Quasi Vero Monaco
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 633


Rublev's Trinity


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2004, 04:38:14 PM »

As a Catholic, I'd like to think we could all be together again, but to quote something Mor Ephrem told me (though he had a much more articulate argument), "Nobody is going anywhere." That is to say, Catholics won't change PI and the IC (among other things), and Orthodox won't accept either. The side of the fence I fall on right now is the Catholic one, but you never know what might happen Smiley.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2004, 04:39:55 PM by Frobie » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2004, 12:50:53 AM »

Quote
Papal Infallibility is a true dogamtic difference.
 

I think Papal Infallibility is truly a dogmatic difference, but it isn't the only one. It isn't the only Roman Catholic Dogma that the Orthodox Church regects.

Quote
Papal Primacy is not so much
the issue as the way it is exercised.


I am talking about Papal supremacy here. I do not think Orthodoxy denies Papal Primacy. The Pope, according to Orthodoxy, is the first amoung equals, therefore holds a primacy of honour. However, Catholicism gives the Pope supremacy, total jurisdiction over the entire Church, a primacy of jurisdiction one might say, that rapidly grew into a supremacy in the 12th and 13th centuries. So here we have a serious difference, that turns into a dogmatic one with the declarations of Vatican I.

Quote
The rest I feel can be worked out and are being worked.  Only hardliners on both sides insist they constitute insurmountable differences of dogma.
 

It is sad, and in a way, funny, that those on both sides who adhere to the basic teachings of their Churches are considered hardliners. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both claim they are the true Church, and the other is in schism. There is no room for compromise here. I am sorry, but this is the truth. When you have two Churches, both claiming to be the true Church, you can't have compormise, one must repent and unite with the other, or there really can't be true union, without the West giving up on some of it's dogmas, and the East embracing some of the dogmas they've regected for centuries.

No matter what Vatican II may have said, or what those who desire union above anything else may say, it is still offical Catholic teaching and dogma, that Catholicism is the truth, and there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. But if I, as a Catholic, go around saying "Catholicism is the truth, all else is heresy, repent, for there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church!" I would be labled as a hardliner and a nut, even though such a statment would be a simple expression of official Catholic teaching.

Quote
For example, the Spanish Church had been reciting the Filioque long before the Schism yet the East did not feel it was an issue worthy of schism until after the Photian/1054 schisms.

This is a good point but the problem now is that the Filioque is offical Catholic dogma. For the RCC to give up the filioque, it would have to admitt it is not the true Church, for the Catholic Church declared the filioque a dogma. There has been no rejection of this dogma and the anathema against those who don't believe in the filioque has never been refuted by Rome. You can't work around this. The Catholic Church holds the Filioque as a dogma, nessicary for salavation, but the East totally rejects it. So we have a problem here, for either side to compromise would be unthinkable, for both sides officialy teach they are the true Church, and the other is in schism/heresy.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2004, 09:24:23 AM »

Ben,

You state:

"No matter what Vatican II may have said, or what those who desire union above anything else may say, it is still offical Catholic teaching and dogma, that Catholicism is the truth, and there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. But if I, as a Catholic, go around saying "Catholicism is the truth, all else is heresy, repent, for there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church!" I would be labled as a hardliner and a nut, even though such a statment would be a simple expression of official Catholic teaching. "

You have presented the schismatic traditionalist line which the Catholic Church rejects.  No matter what Vatican II said?  Vatican II is an authoritative council of the Catholic Church.  Read its documents and those of Pope John Paul II.  Read Dominus Iesus.  Put down the SSPX material.

As to the Filioque, please read The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1176

Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #11 on: April 23, 2004, 10:07:50 AM »

Deacon Lance:

[As to the Filioque, please read The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity:
www.catholicculture.org/docs/d...cfm?recnum=1176]


For an Orthodox Guide To The Filioque access -

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/workinprog_filioque.html

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.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2004, 10:35:14 AM »

Orthodoc,

I believe the document I cited answers most of the criticism of the site you provide.  However, could you provide an official statement by a canonical Orthodox Church or Hierarch that states that the Filioque is an insurmountable obstacle to reunion?  The document I site is an official document of the Catholic Church, the site you reference is just another unofficial anti-Catholic Orthodox polemics site.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2004, 10:51:06 AM »

Orthodoc,

I believe the document I cited answers most of the criticism of the site you provide.  However, could you provide an official statement by a canonical Orthodox Church or Hierarch that states that the Filioque is an insurmountable obstacle to reunion?  The document I site is an official document of the Catholic Church, the site you reference is just another unofficial anti-Catholic Orthodox polemics site.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Not exactly what you asked for, but your answer nevertheless:

Fourth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople - Eighth Ecumenical (Imperial) Council 879-880 AD
Resolved scandals between East and West regarding Bulgaria. Expelled those who did not recognise Nicaea II as Seventh Ecumenical Council. Outlawed and repudiated local councils of Rome and Constantinople against Saint Photius. Established that the Symbol of Faith from Constantinople I (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) was to be forever 'un-innovated' and 'immutable'.


Pretty clear to me.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2004, 11:39:07 AM »

I think TwentyNine summed it up pretty nicely.  It is possible, and some might even say likely, that some individual roman parishes or roman monastic institutions might convert, but the likelyhood that Rome itself would convert with all its attached faithful is utterly preposterous.  Only a great miracle could cause rome to submit and repent of its errors.

The people from Rome in the ecumenical dialogues realize this, and that is why for all their talk of ecumenism and trying to work out the differences, all they are doing is trying to make the Orthodox Church so many more uniates.  Actually what they would really like is for not only the Orthodox but the existing uniates (along with tradlats) is to give up their petty liturgics and all just go Novus Ordo.  No thank you.

Joe Zollars
« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 11:40:05 AM by JoeZollars » Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2004, 12:05:38 PM »

Demetri,

Past condemnations are meaningless when they condemn what they think the other side believes instead of what they actually believe.  This is the case with the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox (and Catholics and Oriental Orthodox as well).  I believe it will turn out to be the case as concerns the Filioque.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #16 on: April 23, 2004, 12:24:03 PM »

[Past condemnations are meaningless when they condemn what they think the other side believes instead of what they actually believe. ]

Does this mean that we are to go through another round of Roman Catholic word games like....'When we say [AND} we really mean [THROUGH].  But we are not going to change so we will continue to use 'AND'.  When we do you all can interprete as 'THROUGH'?

From the latest (Roman) Catholic/ Orthodox (Catholic) discussions -


http://goarch.org/en/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp

Excerpt:

And finally, in view of the fact that the Vatican has affirmed the "normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381" in its original Greek version, the Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church use the same text (without the Filioque) "in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use," and declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.
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.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2004, 12:45:02 PM »

Excerpt:

"In a final section, the Consultation makes eight recommendations to the members and bishops of the two churches. It recommends that they "enter into a new and earnest dialogue concerning the origin and person of the Holy Spirit." It also proposes that in the future both Catholics and Orthodox "refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side" on this subject, and that the theologians of both traditions make a clearer distinction between the divinity of the Spirit, and the manner of the Spirit’s origin, "which still awaits full and final ecumenical resolution." The text also urges theologians to distinguish, as far as possible, the theological issues concerning the origin of the Holy Spirit from ecclesiological issues, and suggests that attention be paid in the future to the status of councils of both our churches that took place after the seven ecumenical councils of the first millennium."


The real issue is not the use of "and" or "through" but what the Greeks and Latins meant by proceed which is two different things.  The Greek word ekpouresis means to take origin, the Latin word procedit means to be sent from.  The Latin procedit is a poor translation for the Greek ekpouresis which is the root of the problem.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: April 23, 2004, 02:35:55 PM »

I think TwentyNine summed it up pretty nicely.  It is possible, and some might even say likely, that some individual roman parishes or roman monastic institutions might convert, but the likelyhood that Rome itself would convert with all its attached faithful is utterly preposterous.  Only a great miracle could cause rome to submit and repent of its errors.

The people from Rome in the ecumenical dialogues realize this, and that is why for all their talk of ecumenism and trying to work out the differences, all they are doing is trying to make the Orthodox Church so many more uniates.  Actually what they would really like is for not only the Orthodox but the existing uniates (along with tradlats) is to give up their petty liturgics and all just go Novus Ordo.  No thank you.

Joe Zollars

Uniates to you. orthodox to the orthodox who are uniting with the west. Your last statement is just yor imagination cause the pope and canon law makes it clear that everyone is to retain their cultural and liturgical traditions. This is unlike of what your church requires of those converting to your church. Look for example at Bishop Kalisto Ware. Do I need to say anymore. Are we required to be orthodox clones? I wonder if Bishop ware could have remain western in appearance.

The uniates as you call them remain what they are. be that russian, ukrainianm, etc. Their cultural roots are intact and required to be intact.  Did the good Bishop approach orthodoxy or was he approached by the orthodox?



« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 03:03:24 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #19 on: April 23, 2004, 02:38:38 PM »

[Past condemnations are meaningless when they condemn what they think the other side believes instead of what they actually believe. ]

Does this mean that we are to go through another round of Roman Catholic word games like....'When we say [AND} we really mean [THROUGH].  But we are not going to change so we will continue to use 'AND'.  When we do you all can interprete as 'THROUGH'?

From the latest (Roman) Catholic/ Orthodox (Catholic) discussions -


http://goarch.org/en/news/releases/articles/release8676.asp

Excerpt:

And finally, in view of the fact that the Vatican has affirmed the "normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381" in its original Greek version, the Consultation recommends that the Catholic Church use the same text (without the Filioque) "in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use," and declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.


yes orthodoc, you know how those cunning Jesuits are! .Rome is hatching up a huge conspiracy to get the east to rejoin again.
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 23, 2004, 04:11:40 PM »

witness Archbishop John Ireland and/or St. Alexis Toth. and then there are the uniates who end up in areas without a uniate church.  Yes of couse uniates get to keep their culture......and little green men from Mars will soon be taking over the federal government of the US.

And I notice your statement "orthodox to the orthodox who are uniting with the west."  This statement prooves my point.  Rome doesn't care about the theological position of the Orthodox, all it cares about are more sheep paying their anual peter's pence.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 23, 2004, 04:12:58 PM »

yes orthodoc, you know how those cunning Jesuits are! .Rome is hatching up a huge conspiracy to get the east to rejoin again.

What have you been smoking man and more importantly where can I get some? Grin

Seriously where on earth in Orthodoc's post did it say anything about Jesuits, conspiracy, etc.?

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #22 on: April 23, 2004, 04:18:29 PM »

witness Archbishop John Ireland and/or St. Alexis Toth. and then there are the uniates who end up in areas without a uniate church.  Yes of couse uniates get to keep their culture......and little green men from Mars will soon be taking over the federal government of the US.

And I notice your statement "orthodox to the orthodox who are uniting with the west."  This statement prooves my point.  Rome doesn't care about the theological position of the Orthodox, all it cares about are more sheep paying their anual peter's pence.

Joe Zollars

Not true because those orthodox that united with rome have kept their theological distinctiveness. We have respected their theological traditions. Nor are they required to get rid of them. So, your statement does not hold water.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 04:21:03 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 23, 2004, 04:24:41 PM »

umm, no.  By submitting to Rome they have to believe all that Rome teaches dogmatically is true.  Therefore they are submitting to Papal Infalability, Immaculate conception, augustinian worldview, Aquinian world view, and lets not forget the f word (filioque).  There are a few parishes that actually have amazingly maintained Orthodox practice even without Orthodox belief (witness ST. Elias in Brompton) but the vast majority are little more than Romans with a byzantine-like liturgical cycle and a few Icons.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #24 on: April 23, 2004, 04:32:47 PM »

umm, no.  By submitting to Rome they have to believe all that Rome teaches dogmatically is true.  Therefore they are submitting to Papal Infalability, Immaculate conception, augustinian worldview, Aquinian world view, and lets not forget the f word (filioque).  There are a few parishes that actually have amazingly maintained Orthodox practice even without Orthodox belief (witness ST. Elias in Brompton) but the vast majority are little more than Romans with a byzantine-like liturgical cycle and a few Icons.

Joe Zollars

No, It is called diversity. Don't be a hater. Wink

We accept your theological distinctiveness and those views that orthodoxy holds so dearly.

Have you been to the majority of the uniates churches to make such a blanket statement?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2004, 04:39:20 PM »

Not true because those orthodox that united with rome have kept their theological distinctiveness. We have respected their theological traditions. Nor are they required to get rid of them. So, your statement does not hold water.


Oh, so all those Latinizations we've had to put up with were respect for our theological traditions?

Your statement holds no water at all.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2004, 04:40:21 PM »

"but the vast majority are little more than Romans with a byzantine-like liturgical cycle and a few Icons."

How anyone who has church hopped as much as you have in the short amount of time you have done so can make such statements with zero first-hand experience with the vast majority of Byzantine Catholics is amazing.  Walk with us a mile before you disparage us.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2004, 04:43:34 PM »

Schultz,

Except for mandatory celibacy in America, every Latinization we have we adopted out of our own desire to distance ourselves from our Orthodox brethren, Rome had nothing to do with it and infact asked us not to do it and continually asks us to stop doing it.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #28 on: April 23, 2004, 04:43:53 PM »

No, It is called diversity. Don't be a hater.

We accept your theological distinctiveness and those views that orthodoxy holds so dearly.

Have you been to the majority of the uniates churches to make such a blanket statement?

=======

No, it sounds more like a form of Protestantism to me.  Where everyone gets to pick and choose what they believe as long as they accept the Pope as the final earthly authority.

A belief where there can be deversity in ones faith (dogma) as long as it is centered around papal allegiance.

Orthodoc (who came from such a background)
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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2004, 04:48:31 PM »

Not true because those orthodox that united with rome have kept their theological distinctiveness. We have respected their theological traditions. Nor are they required to get rid of them. So, your statement does not hold water.


Oh, so all those Latinizations we've had to put up with were respect for our theological traditions?

Your statement holds no water at all.

Diversity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

can you give me examples?
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2004, 04:53:07 PM »

No, It is called diversity. Don't be a hater.

We accept your theological distinctiveness and those views that orthodoxy holds so dearly.

Have you been to the majority of the uniates churches to make such a blanket statement?

=======

No, it sounds more like a form of Protestantism to me.  Where everyone gets to pick and choose what they believe as long as they accept the Pope as the final earthly authority.

A belief where there can be deversity in ones faith (dogma) as long as it is centered around papal allegiance.

Orthodoc (who came from such a background)

« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 04:56:43 PM by romanbyzantium » 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 #31 on: April 23, 2004, 04:58:48 PM »

[Not true because those orthodox that united with rome have kept their theological distinctiveness. We have respected their theological traditions. Nor are they required to get rid of them. So, your statement does not hold water.]

So, why then, did the good Bishop Elko flee to Rome in the 50's where he was protected by the Pope & the Vatican until he returned 14 years later as a Latin Rite Bishop?

So much for respect for  ones theological distinctiveness and traditions.

Perhaps Father Deacon Lance can provide you with more information on the Byzantine Catholic Bishop who was famous for claiming that he would not rest until..."All the stink was squeezed from the Onion Domes and all the grease from the greasy Greeks'!
As he was taking down the Cupolas, 3 bar Crosses,  Iconstasis.  And replacing them with statues and Latin Altars imported from Italy.

Orthodoc (who saw it with his own eyes and had neighbors and relatives who lived through it)
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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2004, 05:01:14 PM »

[Not true because those orthodox that united with rome have kept their theological distinctiveness. We have respected their theological traditions. Nor are they required to get rid of them. So, your statement does not hold water.]

So, why then, did the good Bishop Elko flee to Rome in the 50's where he was protected by the Pope & the Vatican until he returned 14 years later as a Latin Rite Bishop?

So much for respect for  ones theological distinctiveness and traditions.

Perhaps Father Deacon Lance can provide you with more information on the Byzantine Catholic Bishop who was famous for claiming that he would not rest until..."All the stink was squeezed from the Onion Domes and all the grease from the greasy Greeks'!
As he was taking down the Cupolas, 3 bar Crosses,  Iconstasis.  And replacing them with statues and Latin Altars imported from Italy.

Orthodoc (who saw it with his own eyes and had neighbors and relatives who lived through it)

Why did he flee to rome? what did orthodoxy do to him?
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2004, 05:02:35 PM »

Father Deacon,

Rome may have told us to stop, but that didn't stop local Latin church leaders from "encouraging" such Latinizations.

Basilians anyone?

Romanbyzantium,

The aforementioned mandatory celibacy in the Americas, for one.  The Filioque for another.  "First Holy Communion" and chrismation separated from baptism.  

I'm too busy to go on for now.  Let's just start with those, shall we?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2004, 05:06:14 PM »

Quote
Why did he flee to rome? what did orthodoxy do to him?

Orthodoxy did nothing to him, romanbyzantium.  Bishop Elko was the Metropolitan of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in the 50s and started a campaign to remove Eastern Christian traditions from his church, such as those Orthodoc outlined.  His own flock became so incensed with his "ethnic cleansing" that he had to flee to Rome.  He basically tried to turn the Ruthenian Catholic Church into a Latin one.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 05:07:22 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2004, 05:15:25 PM »

Orthodoxy did nothing to him, romanbyzantium.  Bishop Elko was the Metropolitan of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in the 50s and started a campaign to remove Eastern Christian traditions from his church, such as those Orthodoc outlined.  His own flock became so incensed with his "ethnic cleansing" that he had to flee to Rome.  He basically tried to turn the Ruthenian Catholic Church into a Latin one.

Why did he want to latinized his church? what were the reasons? something must have occurred for him to say the things he said. what was his ethnic background?

Nevertheless, the pope and canon law says that cultural and theological traditions should be maintained.  that includes a married priesthood, no filioque,etc...
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2004, 05:19:01 PM »

I don't presume to know what was going on in Bishop Elko's head.  

And there is no reason to do such a thing, only excuses.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2004, 05:25:28 PM »

I don't presume to know what was going on in Bishop Elko's head.  

And there is no reason to do such a thing, only excuses.

People don't do such acts without a motivational factor involved. Something must have been occurred that would have prompted him to do such things which, are against church teachings.

Do you his ethnic background?
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 #38 on: April 23, 2004, 06:15:46 PM »

People don't do such acts without a motivational factor involved. Something must have been occurred that would have prompted him to do such things which, are against church teachings.

Do you his ethnic background?

=======

He was an American born Byzantine Catholic that identified himself a 'Ruthenian' -

----------

Date Age Event Title
14 Dec 1909  Born Donora, PA
30 Sep 1934 24.8 Ordained Priest Priest
5 Feb 1955 45.1 Appointed Bishop of United States of America, Faithful of the Oriental Rite (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania
5 Feb 1955 45.1 Appointed Titular Bishop of Apollonias
6 Mar 1955 45.2 Ordained Bishop Titular Bishop of Apollonias
6 Jul 1963 53.6 Appointed Bishop of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania, USA
22 Dec 1967 58.0 Resigned Bishop of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania, USA
22 Dec 1967 58.0 Appointed Titular Archbishop of Dara
10 Aug 1971 61.7 Appointed Archbishop (Personal Title), Auxiliary of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
16 Apr 1985 75.3 Retired Auxiliary Bishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
18 May 1991 81.4 Died Bishop Emeritus of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania, USA



The question is -

1)  If Rome was so protective of the 'Byzantine traditions & theology' as is being claimed...Then why didn't they step in when he started the 'ethnic cleansing'?  Instead, he ran to them and they saved and protected him and brought him back home as a Latin Bishop.

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2004, 06:35:36 PM »

People don't do such acts without a motivational factor involved. Something must have been occurred that would have prompted him to do such things which, are against church teachings.

Do you his ethnic background?

=======

He was an American born Byzantine Catholic that identified himself a 'Ruthenian' -

----------

Date Age Event Title
14 Dec 1909  Born Donora, PA
30 Sep 1934 24.8 Ordained Priest Priest
5 Feb 1955 45.1 Appointed Bishop of United States of America, Faithful of the Oriental Rite (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania
5 Feb 1955 45.1 Appointed Titular Bishop of Apollonias
6 Mar 1955 45.2 Ordained Bishop Titular Bishop of Apollonias
6 Jul 1963 53.6 Appointed Bishop of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania, USA
22 Dec 1967 58.0 Resigned Bishop of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania, USA
22 Dec 1967 58.0 Appointed Titular Archbishop of Dara
10 Aug 1971 61.7 Appointed Archbishop (Personal Title), Auxiliary of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
16 Apr 1985 75.3 Retired Auxiliary Bishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
18 May 1991 81.4 Died Bishop Emeritus of Pittsburgh (Ruthenian), Pennsylvania, USA



The question is -

1)  If Rome was so protective of the 'Byzantine traditions & theology' as is being claimed...Then why didn't they step in when he started the 'ethnic cleansing'?  Instead, he ran to them and they saved and protected him and brought him back home as a Latin Bishop.

Orthodoc

1. I asked for his ethnicity not where he was born?
2. ethnic cleansing............. whom did he killed?
3. read the encyclical of various popes concerning the eastern tradition, especially the current one.
4. there are things that you are not telling me. you are telling the end ( supposedly)of the story. why don't you tell me the beginning of it. why did he want to " ethnic cleanse" his church?
5. did they make him a latin bishop without his concsent ( show me where it says that he was ordained as a latin Bishop) or did he choose to be a latin bishop?

I have been looking on the net for info. on him and the story told about him here and nothing yet. will keep trying thought.

« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 06:39:40 PM by romanbyzantium » 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 #40 on: April 23, 2004, 08:49:47 PM »

 1. I asked for his ethnicity not where he was born?


And I answered your question by stating he classified himself as 'Ruthenian'.  Some people would say 'Carpatho-Russian or Carpatho-Rusyn'.

2. ethnic cleansing............. whom did he killed?


Can you show me where 'ethnic cleansing' specifically means killing?

3. read the encyclical of various popes concerning the eastern tradition, especially the current one.


Words and actions do not always go hand in hand.  Especially where the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.  We Orthodox are well aware that what the RCC says and does are two different things.

4. there are things that you are not telling me. you are telling the end ( supposedly)of the story. why don't you tell me the beginning of it. why did he want to " ethnic cleanse" his church?


I'm not a Byzantine Catholic.  Ask them.  Perhaps Father Deacon Lance can tell you why he had such a hatred for anything that looked or sounded too 'Orthodox'.  Apparently he looked upon himself as a second class (papal) Catholic being of the Byzantine Rite.

5. did they make him a latin bishop without his concsent ( show me where it says that he was ordained as a latin Bishop) or did he choose to be a latin bishop?

Ask those Byzantine Catholics who post here.  Read the history I provided and look up the statistics for the Hierachs in the Ohio RC diocese.  Bishop Elko was not a very nice man.  Most Byzantine Catholics, with good reason, would rather forget he existed.

From your last few responses to myself and others it seems like you are not really interested in discussion.  You just want to troll.  Especially if you don't like or do not agree with what is said.

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2004, 08:58:56 PM »

1. I asked for his ethnicity not where he was born?


And I answered your question by stating he classified himself as 'Ruthenian'.  Some people would say 'Carpatho-Russian or Carpatho-Rusyn'.

2. ethnic cleansing............. whom did he killed?


Can you show me where 'ethnic cleansing' specifically means killing?

3. read the encyclical of various popes concerning the eastern tradition, especially the current one.


Words and actions do not always go hand in hand.  Especially where the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.  We Orthodox are well aware that what the RCC says and does are two different things.

4. there are things that you are not telling me. you are telling the end ( supposedly)of the story. why don't you tell me the beginning of it. why did he want to " ethnic cleanse" his church?


I'm not a Byzantine Catholic.  Ask them.  Perhaps Father Deacon Lance can tell you why he had such a hatred for anything that looked or sounded too 'Orthodox'.  Apparently he looked upon himself as a second class (papal) Catholic being of the Byzantine Rite.

5. did they make him a latin bishop without his concsent ( show me where it says that he was ordained as a latin Bishop) or did he choose to be a latin bishop?

Ask those Byzantine Catholics who post here.  Read the history I provided and look up the statistics for the Hierachs in the Ohio RC diocese.  Bishop Elko was not a very nice man.  Most Byzantine Catholics, with good reason, would rather forget he existed.

From your last few responses to myself and others it seems like you are not really interested in discussion.  You just want to troll.  Especially if you don't like or do not agree with what is said.

Orthodoc  


1. eth-+nic cleans-+ing
 
noun  
 
violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal from an area of people attacked because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion
 

2. you brought him up and it is up to you to provide the information that I am asking for.

3. The catholic church does exactly what she says. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?

4. your second class comment is useless in that church teaching is clear that all rites are equal as taught by popes and canon law.
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2004, 09:04:41 PM »

Nevertheless, the pope and canon law says that cultural and theological traditions should be maintained.  that includes a married priesthood, no filioque,etc...

Are you forgetting that Rome mandated that there be no married priests in America. Abp. John Ireland, St. Alexis Toth, etc.?

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2004, 09:10:19 PM »

Are you forgetting that Rome mandated that there be no married priests in America. Abp. John Ireland, St. Alexis Toth, etc.?

Joe Zollars

It was superceded in 1990 when Pope John Paul II promulgated the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. The new code abrogated the ban of 1929. There are married latin priest that converted from protestanism. and there have been ( present time) byzantine priests ordained that are married.

Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2004, 09:13:25 PM »

as true as that may be, it doesn't change the fact that the 1929 ban existed.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2004, 09:18:59 PM »

as true as that may be, it doesn't change the fact that the 1929 ban existed.

Joe Zollars

That is correct only in america. Do you know why is was banned in america back then?
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 23, 2004, 09:30:07 PM »

From what I have read, it was due to the bigotry of the Roman bishops particularly Abp. John Ireland, who did not consider the ER Catholics as truly Catholic thus causing St. Alexis Toth to lead millions of uniates back to the Orthodox Faith and then later when the ruthenian parishes left Rome and eventually formed the ACROD.

All of this just goes to show my original point that Rome only desires union on its terms.  

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #47 on: April 23, 2004, 09:47:25 PM »

From what I have read, it was due to the bigotry of the Roman bishops particularly Abp. John Ireland, who did not consider the ER Catholics as truly Catholic thus causing St. Alexis Toth to lead millions of uniates back to the Orthodox Faith and then later when the ruthenian parishes left Rome and eventually formed the ACROD.

All of this just goes to show my original point that Rome only desires union on its terms.  

Joe Zollars

it was a bit more than that.  and it had to do with the catholic church trying to fit- in protestant america and many mistakes where made in order to fit in which hurt other catholics.

why do you blame the bigotry of some on the entire church, joe?

you are doing the same thing that protestants do.  blame the entire church for what some have done. Don't live in the past joe, come forward into the present.

« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 09:47:46 PM by romanbyzantium » 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 #48 on: April 23, 2004, 10:33:58 PM »

[violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal from an area of people attacked because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion]

The buzz words here are the last three...OR FORCED EXPULSION.  Which, in case you are unable to comprehend means that 'ethnic cleansing' is not tied into genocide alone but the elimination of someone or something thru various means.  Kind of like all the Carpatho-Russians that were 'ethnically cleansed' from their villages which came under Polish RC rule during WWII and had their churches turned into RC churches.  Including my grandparents.

[2. you brought him up and it is up to you to provide the information that I am asking for.]

It is not up to me to provide anything.  If you disagree with what I write it is up to you to prove me wrong.

[3. The catholic church does exactly what she says. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?]

The Union of Brest, &  the Quadripartite Agreement to name just two.

[4. your second class comment is useless in that church teaching is clear that all rites are equal as taught by popes and canon law.]

Then how come -

1)  The UGCC needs to get approval from the Pope in order to declare a 'Patriarchate'?

2)  The UGCC bishops here in the US have to submit their retirements to the Pope for approval?

3)  The last UGCC Bishops in the UGCC here in the US were consecrated by Papal representatives rather than Cardianl Husar?

4)  That a married man has to be approved by Rome before he can be ordained here in the US?

Do you want me to start quoting some of the Canons of the Eastern Churches to show you that Rome still has the authority to say 'jump'  and those within those sui juris churches still have to answer 'How High?'  Where is the equality in a set up like that?

Orthodoc


« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 10:38:38 PM by 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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #49 on: April 23, 2004, 10:53:54 PM »

[violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal from an area of people attacked because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion]

The buzz words here are the last three...OR FORCED EXPULSION.  Which, in case you are unable to comrehend means that 'ethnic cleansing' is not tied into genocide alone but the elimination of someone or something thru various means.  Kind of like all the Carpatho-Russians that were 'ethnically cleansed' from their villages which came under Polish RC rule during WWII and had their churches turned into RC churches.  Including my grandparents.

[2. you brought him up and it is up to you to provide the information that I am asking for.]

It is not up to me to provide anything.  If you disagree with what I write it is up to you to prove me wrong.

[3. The catholic church does exactly what she says. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?]

The Union of Brest, &  the Quadripartite Agreement to name just two.

[4. your second class comment is useless in that church teaching is clear that all rites are equal as taught by popes and canon law.]

The how come -

1)  The UGCC needs to get approval from the Pope in order to declare a 'Patriarchate'?

2)  The UGCC bishops here in the US have to submit their retirements to the Pope for approval?

3)  The last UGCC Bishops in the UGCC here in the US were consecrated by Papal representatives rather than Cardianl Husar?

4)  That a married man has to be approved by Rome before he can be ordained here in the US?

Do you want me to start quoting some of the Canons of the Eastern Churches to show you that Rome still has the authority to say 'jump'  and those within those sui juris churches still have to answer 'How High?'  Where is the equality in a set up like that?

Orthodoc




1. I see, since the definition didn't quite support your claim now we are bringing in WWII. If you want to bring that up lets also bring up the russian carving of poland and the ethnic cleansing of the poles. why doesn't russia return all that polish land that they took from them during WWII ,1772, 1793, and 1795 and return those people to their proper cultural heritage. also, these people where forced to convert to orthdoxy.  should I go on, ORTHODOC. You never know Orthodoc, perhaps you are really polish and not even know it. You could be a victim of the russians and the russian orthodox church. do you see how this works?

2. I don't have to prove you wrong, orthodoc. that is not the way it works. you have to provide the source of where you got your information. you haven't done that, OTHODOC.

3. quote away, Orthodoc. they have autonomy ( self governing day-to-day. it hadndles its own affairs...that is what sui iurus means) but the pope still has a right to intervene as the unifying person of the church. Hello, Othodoc, communion with Rome always implies recognizing the Pope's authority. You know the way it was before the russian church declared its independence from constantinople.

4. I suggest that you read the encyclicals from rome regarding the eastern catholics. you are so misinformed.

5. your 4 points are so ridiculous. married priests are allowed, they don't need pope approval since he said go ahead with your traditions. the pope as the head of the catholic church creates dioceses, patriarchate, etc.., onsecration is concencration.

6. give me examples from The Union of Brest, &  the Quadripartite Agreement that you see that rome has negated on.



« Last Edit: April 23, 2004, 11:21:39 PM by romanbyzantium » 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 #50 on: April 23, 2004, 11:22:06 PM »

[You never know Orthodoc, perhaps you are really polish and not even know it. You could be a victim of the russians and the russian orthodox church. do you see how this works?]

Actually I am part Polish and well aware of it.  My paternal grandmother was born and raised in Poland.  I am also part Croation and Carpatho-Russian.  What's your point?
However, my maternal grandmothers church is also in what is now part of Poland.  Only her village was 'ethnically cleansed' and the  Uniate church she was baptised in and grew up in is now a Polish RCC.

 [you have to provide the source of where you got your information. you haven't done that, OTHODOC.]

I have already done that by provideing you with the dates of Bishop Elko's birth thru death.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  There seems to be no sinse in giving you references because you either don't seem to access them or can't comprehend what they say.

Believe me, if anything I said regarding Bishop Elko was wrong there would have been replies by the Byzantine Catholic's that are members of this discussion group by now.

[but the pope still has a right to intervene as the unifying person of the church.]

And how does that intervention give him an equal status with the church he has the authority  to intervene in?

From your posts I really don't think you are interested in an intelligent conversation.  

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #51 on: April 23, 2004, 11:24:28 PM »

[You never know Orthodoc, perhaps you are really polish and not even know it. You could be a victim of the russians and the russian orthodox church. do you see how this works?]

Actually I am part Polish and well aware of it.  My paternal grandmother was born and raised in Poland.  I am also part Croation and Carpatho-Russian.  What's your point?
However, my maternal grandmothers church is also in what is now part of Poland.  Only her village was 'ethnically cleansed' and the  Uniate church she was baptised in and grew up in is now a Polish RCC.

 [you have to provide the source of where you got your information. you haven't done that, OTHODOC.]

I have already done that by provideing you with the dates of Bishop Elko's birth thru death.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  There seems to be no sinse in giving you references because you either don't seem to access them or can't comprehend what they say.

Believe me, if anything I said regarding Bishop Elko was wrong there would have been replies by the Byzantine Catholic's that are members of this discussion group by now.

[but the pope still has a right to intervene as the unifying person of the church.]

And how does that intervention give him an equal status with the church he has the authority  to intervene in?

From your posts I really don't think you are interested in an intelligent conversation.  

Orthodoc


Orthodoc, I am interested in intelligent conversation but, youare only interested in winning an argument.
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 #52 on: April 23, 2004, 11:41:45 PM »

[Orthodoc, I am interested in intelligent conversation but, youare only interested in winning an argument. ]

Ha, ha, ha, ha!  Ever look in the mirror my friend!

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2004, 11:52:35 PM »

[Orthodoc, I am interested in intelligent conversation but, youare only interested in winning an argument. ]

Ha, ha, ha, ha!  Ever look in the mirror my friend!

Orthodoc
     


yeah... one good looking chap. kissing the mirror  Kiss

All I want is for you to be fair about catholicism but you are not. everthing that you write is so negative and accussatory as if the orthodox have such a stellar clean record. Do you really believe that the orthodox haven't persecuted catholics? Both sides have done many horrible things to each other but you can't live in the pass and you can't pretend that your side in an innocent little white lamb that has been picked on by the big bad wolf.

You know my pope has asked forgiveness of my church's sins. we also forgive those that have harmed us also. and that includes the orthodox church and their governments.

we now move on without looking back. the orthodox should learn from example from this very old polish pope. we are at peace with God and jesus. are guilt is erased and forgotten.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2004, 12:40:28 AM »

Quote
You have presented the schismatic traditionalist line which the Catholic Church rejects.  No matter what Vatican II said?  Vatican II is an authoritative council of the Catholic Church.  Read its documents and those of Pope John Paul II.  Read Dominus Iesus.  Put down the SSPX material.

First of all I am not denying Vatican II was a Council of the Church, but Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI made it clear is was a pastoral one, not a dogmatic one.

With that said I would like to say that your "put down the SSPX material" is hogwash, I said nothing that was contrary to offical RCC teaching. And plus I do not even attend an SSPX parish, I did some time ago, but no longer do.

The Society of St. Pius X is not schismatic, I will not argue this here, but PM me if you wish to discuss it further. This is a Catholic-Orthodox discussion forum, not one that I want to fill with debates over SSPX.

As for the traditional movement, there has been no condemnation by Rome. If anything Rome has given into time and time again, but not always for the right reasons, FSSP is a perfect example of this.

Quote
As to the Filioque, please read The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1176

It is a DOGMA of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as ONE source. No one can deny this!

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "...we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

The Catholic Church has declared the Filioque a dogma, just like Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception. To deny the doctrine of the Filioque in anyway is to place yourself in heresy, for the Catholic Church teaches, and always has, those who deny and reject the dogmas of the Church are in heresy.

Please understand that I'm not saying this to offend any Orthodox Christians, I'm just trying to point out that you can't be a Catholic and deny the Filioque, or think it can be shoved off to the side for sake of union.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but it frustrates me to see dogmas shoved off to the side and redeffined for the sake of union.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 05:10:15 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
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 #55 on: April 24, 2004, 11:21:06 AM »

[All I want is for you to be fair about catholicism but you are not. everthing that you write is so negative and accussatory as if the orthodox have such a stellar clean record.]

Everything I write is historical fact and usually in response to some misinformation posted regarding Orthodoxy.  

As far as your Pope asking for forgiveness...I admire him for that, I really do.  But we Orthodox have learned over the last 1000+ years that where the RCC is concerned actions speak louder than words.  Thats why we choose the 'wait and see attitude' for the present time.  And so far the actions do not necessary correspond to the words.

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2004, 11:35:26 AM »

[All I want is for you to be fair about catholicism but you are not. everthing that you write is so negative and accussatory as if the orthodox have such a stellar clean record.]

Everything I write is historical fact and usually in response to some misinformation posted regarding Orthodoxy.  

As far as your Pope asking for forgiveness...I admire him for that, I really do.  But we Orthodox have learned over the last 1000+ years that where the RCC is concerned actions speak louder than words.  Thats why we choose the 'wait and see attitude' for the present time.  And so far the actions do not necessary correspond to the words.

Orthodoc

You leave out alot of historical facts when it suits you and the action of orthodoxy against other christians.

you are unbelievable Orthodoc! you act like a person that has been jilted by a lover. what present actions do not necessary correspond to the words? please some examples?
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 #57 on: April 24, 2004, 01:48:02 PM »

[You leave out alot of historical facts when it suits you and the action of orthodoxy against other christians.]

If I leave out some historical facts regarding Orthodoxy against other christians why don't you fill in those blanks so we can discuss them?
You make accusations without giving specifics just as you never answer any of my questions directed towards you.

[what present actions do not necessary correspond to the words? please some examples?]

I could name quite a few but we have rehashed them so many times here already that it would be useless to rehash them for the umpteenth time.  Just do a search of the archives if possible on lets say...the Quadripartite Agreement and how about the Pope using one of Russia's Holiest Icons as a bribe to visit Russia!  

As I stated I don't intend to rehash either subject again.  I have said all that needs to be said already.  I'm just giving you two PRESENT actions that show Rc actions speak louder than their empty words.

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2004, 05:34:34 PM »

[You leave out alot of historical facts when it suits you and the action of orthodoxy against other christians.]

If I leave out some historical facts regarding Orthodoxy against other christians why don't you fill in those blanks so we can discuss them?
You make accusations without giving specifics just as you never answer any of my questions directed towards you.

[what present actions do not necessary correspond to the words? please some examples?]

I could name quite a few but we have rehashed them so many times here already that it would be useless to rehash them for the umpteenth time.  Just do a search of the archives if possible on lets say...the Quadripartite Agreement and how about the Pope using one of Russia's Holiest Icons as a bribe to visit Russia!  

As I stated I don't intend to rehash either subject again.  I have said all that needs to be said already.  I'm just giving you two PRESENT actions that show Rc actions speak louder than their empty words.

Orthodoc



1. Oh, you mean the agreement which you wanted the greek catholics destroyed. The same agreement that the greeks catholic rejected.

2. You mean the Holy Icon of Karzan. He wants to personally return it. why the objection? where is the bribe? anyways russian/orthodox official claim that the icon is not the original. why should he even return it. it was a gift to the pope from a group of catholic nuns. But if he wants to give it to russia it is his right.

3. btw, when is russia/orthodox church going to return the property that it stole from the  greek byzantine catholics?

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

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #59 on: April 24, 2004, 05:42:12 PM »

I think it is interesting that church property, broken agreements, proselytizing, etc. still divide east and west more than the dogmatic differences. On both sides people seem to be more wrapped up in Church politics and material disputes, than what really seperates us: the fundamental dogmatic differences.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #60 on: April 24, 2004, 06:01:15 PM »

"So, why then, did the good Bishop Elko flee to Rome in the 50's where he was protected by the Pope & the Vatican until he returned 14 years later as a Latin Rite Bishop?

Perhaps Father Deacon Lance can provide you with more information on the Byzantine Catholic Bishop who was famous for claiming that he would not rest until..."All the stink was squeezed from the Onion Domes and all the grease from the greasy Greeks'!
As he was taking down the Cupolas, 3 bar Crosses,  Iconstasis.  And replacing them with statues and Latin Altars imported from Italy.

I'm not a Byzantine Catholic.  Ask them.  Perhaps Father Deacon Lance can tell you why he had such a hatred for anything that looked or sounded too 'Orthodox'.  Apparently he looked upon himself as a second class (papal) Catholic being of the Byzantine Rite.

Ask those Byzantine Catholics who post here.  Read the history I provided and look up the statistics for the Hierachs in the Ohio RC diocese.  Bishop Elko was not a very nice man.  Most Byzantine Catholics, with good reason, would rather forget he existed."

As far as Archbishop Nicholas goes:

He did not flee to Rome but was "called to Rome" quite against his wishes and made ordaining bishop for Byzantine Catholics, i.e he was there to ordain seminarians in Rome.  If you are familiar with the corporate term "being kicked up" that is what happened.  He did not want to be in Rome.  He was being punished not protected.  He was made a titluar archbishop, I assume in hopes of appeasing him.  He finally was allowed to return to the US but only after he agreed to a canonical change of Churches from the Byzantine to the Latin Church and was assigned to Cincinatti as an auxillary bishop.

As to Orthodoc's quote I have no knowledge of it.  Onion domes, three bar crosses, and icons have always been used by my Church.  Statues were sometimes used, but were limited and in almost all cases secondary.  Iconostasis were, unfortunately removed or not put in new Churches during Archbishop Nicholas' tenure, my own parish being one of them.  The result was usually an Icon of Christ to the right and the Mother of God to the left of the altar. Latin style (rectangular and up one, two or three steps) altars were in use before Archbishop Nicholas.  He did refuse to promulgate the 1941 Ordo which was a to be a return to more traditional Rusyn practice.

Archbishop Nicholas was also a former pastor of my parish.  While I did not know him those from my parish that did liked him immensely.  One of his last acts was to come to Canonsburg to marry a parishioner.  This was in the Latin parish, the girl was marrying a Latin Catholic man.  I think it unfair to say he was not a nice man.  A bad administrator, wrong in the direction he wanted for our Church but it is wrong to deride the man as a person.  From what I understand the faithful of Cincinatti were very fond of him as well.  

One good thing he did was introduce English and this quite shrewdly.  Rather than do it himself and be accused of abandoning OCS he had the immensely popular Archbishop Fulton Sheen (in full Byzantine vesture) celebrate the first English Divine Liturgy at the annual Uniontown Pilgrimage.  English was introduced without protest and slowly became the primary liturgical language.

Fr. Deacon Lance
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 06:02:11 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #61 on: April 24, 2004, 06:09:25 PM »

Ben,

"First of all I am not denying Vatican II was a Council of the Church, but Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI made it clear is was a pastoral one, not a dogmatic one."

Then what do make of the two DOGMATIC Constitutions Vatican II issued.

"The Society of St. Pius X is not schismatic"

It certainly is and was formally declared so by Pope John Paul II.

I again refer you to the Church's current documents.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #62 on: April 24, 2004, 06:35:28 PM »



"The Society of St. Pius X is not schismatic"

It certainly is and was formally declared so by Pope John Paul II.


I will not get into this, for this is not the place to aruge over SSPX. I have a MSN group with some info on SSPX. Please take a look:

http://groups.msn.com/CATHOLIC101/sspx.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/CATHOLIC101/sspxschismaticornot.msnw <this is under construction but all that needs to be done is some format stuff...like font, etc.

I also suggest you read the consencration sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre, June 30th 1988:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/lef-cons-sermon.html

Look, I am not trying to say that the SSPX isn't in an irregular position with several complications. As I said I do not attend an SSPX parish, because I realize the irregular position of the SSPX, and their questionable status. I'm just saying I don't think SSPX is schismatic, in my opinion.

I think it's strange that faithful Catholics are quick to call SSPX schismatic, because Archbishop Lefebvre ordained bishops without Papal approval, but they won't call the Orthodox Church schismatic for breaking off from Rome (offical Catholic teaching) and say it's in heresy for rejecting Catholic dogmas like the Filioque and Papal Infallibilty.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 06:57:31 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
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 24, 2004, 07:12:50 PM »

Quote
3. btw, when is russia/orthodox church going to return the property that it stole from the  greek byzantine catholics?

The latter already took it back in the southwestern Ukraine when the USSR was collapsing.
Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #64 on: April 24, 2004, 07:22:32 PM »

Ha. Elko was basically held prisoner in the Vatican, not protected, for much of the time he was there.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #65 on: April 24, 2004, 08:48:21 PM »

I think it is interesting that church property, broken agreements, proselytizing, etc. still divide east and west more than the dogmatic differences. On both sides people seem to be more wrapped up in Church politics and material disputes, than what really seperates us: the fundamental dogmatic differences.

What I don't understand is why does orthodox church want the byzantine catholics gone?
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #66 on: April 24, 2004, 08:59:18 PM »

I will not get into this, for this is not the place to aruge over SSPX. I have a MSN group with some info on SSPX. Please take a look:

http://groups.msn.com/CATHOLIC101/sspx.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/CATHOLIC101/sspxschismaticornot.msnw <this is under construction but all that needs to be done is some format stuff...like font, etc.

I also suggest you read the consencration sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre, June 30th 1988:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/lef-cons-sermon.html

Look, I am not trying to say that the SSPX isn't in an irregular position with several complications. As I said I do not attend an SSPX parish, because I realize the irregular position of the SSPX, and their questionable status. I'm just saying I don't think SSPX is schismatic, in my opinion.

I think it's strange that faithful Catholics are quick to call SSPX schismatic, because Archbishop Lefebvre ordained bishops without Papal approval, but they won't call the Orthodox Church schismatic for breaking off from Rome (offical Catholic teaching) and say it's in heresy for rejecting Catholic dogmas like the Filioque and Papal Infallibilty.

Ben,

The catholic church does call SSPX schimatical just like orthodoxy.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #67 on: April 24, 2004, 09:05:43 PM »

What I don't understand is why does orthodox church want the byzantine catholics gone?

I don't think the Orthodox Church as a whole, or even the majority of Orthodox Christians want the Eastern rites, some of which have no Orthodox counterparts, of the Catholic Church to be gone.

I personally think many Orthodox Christians don't like or appreciate the Catholic Church using the eastern rites as tools in eastern europe to convert practicing Orthodox Christians. And plus who wouldn't have a bad taste in their mouth for the Eastern rite after hearing just one Eastern rite Catholic person or parish calling themself "Orthodox in union with Rome".

That would make anybody a little frustrated.
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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #68 on: April 24, 2004, 09:12:27 PM »

I don't think the Orthodox Church as a whole, or even the majority of Orthodox Christians want the Eastern rites, some of which have no Orthodox counterparts, of the Catholic Church to be gone.

I personally think many Orthodox Christians don't like or appreciate the Catholic Church using the eastern rites as tools in eastern europe to convert practicing Orthodox Christians. And plus who wouldn't have a bad taste in their mouth for the Eastern rite after hearing just one Eastern rite Catholic person or parish calling themself "Orthodox in union with Rome".

That would make anybody a little frustrated.

I don't believe that practicing orthodox convert at all. These are people that are unchurch or came to catholicism on their own. I don't think that we are handing out tracks like the protestants in front of their churches and street corners.

Communion with rome doesn't mean uniformity.
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #69 on: April 24, 2004, 09:13:05 PM »

hmm, the way I see it, the Orthodox I have spoken to say they feel that the position of hte Uniates is very sad and hope for their return to their mother, the Orthodox Church.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #70 on: April 24, 2004, 09:14:33 PM »

Ben,

The catholic church does call SSPX schimatical just like orthodoxy.

Really? So you are admitting that it is the official Catholic Church teaching that the Orthodox Church is schismatic? But in the "A question on proselytizing" thread you stated:

"Also, I have to add that this same attitude exists within groups of traditionalist within catholicism too. They regard orthodoxy as utterly heretical/schismatics. But this too needs to be ignored as it doesn't represent the teachings of the church." (bold mine)

So wait the attitude or opinion that Orthodoxy is schismatic must be ignored, yet you state that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Seems to me that you are telling people to ignore the teachings of Catholic Church.

Oh and one last thing......is "schimatical" a word?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 09:31:05 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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #71 on: April 24, 2004, 09:35:26 PM »

Really? So you are admitting that it is the official Catholic Church teaching that the Orthodox Church is schismatic? But in the "A question on proselytizing" thread you stated:

"Also, I have to add that this same attitude exists within groups of traditionalist within catholicism too. They regard orthodoxy as utterly heretical/schismatics. But this too needs to be ignored as it doesn't represent the teachings of the church." (bold mine)

So wait the attitude or opinion that Orthodoxy is schismatic must be ignored, yet you state that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Seems to me that you are telling people to ignore the teachings of Catholic Church.

Oh and one last thing......is "schismatical" a word?


Sorry, I miss spoke. That should  have read:  They are in schism but not heretics. But that tradionalist within catholicism would say that they are heretical/schimatics. the heresy part is what need to be ignored as it is not church teaching.

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

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #72 on: April 24, 2004, 09:40:08 PM »

I agree that Orthodox Christians are not heretics, well not the vast majority, according the Catholic defeinition of "heretic". However, since Orthodoxy rejects fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Church, according to Catholic teaching, Orthodoxy is in heresy. The Catholic Church has always taught that those persons and groups or Churches who deny and reject fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Church are in heresy.
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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #73 on: April 24, 2004, 09:44:31 PM »

I agree that Orthodox Christians are not heretics, well not the vast majority, according the Catholic defeinition of "heretic". However, since Orthodoxy rejects fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Church, according to Catholic teaching, Orthodoxy is in heresy. The Catholic Church has always taught that those persons and groups or Churches who deny and reject fundamental dogmas of the Catholic Church are in heresy.


But only those who believe that the church is the true church and denies a dogma of the church. I believe that this doesn't apply to the orthodox because it is not their fault that they reject dogmas of the church. You can't blame them for something that their ancestors did.

Are you a traditionalist catholic?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 09:45:04 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #74 on: April 24, 2004, 09:54:38 PM »

lol...."you can't blame them for something that their ancesters did". My God do you think that all of the Orthodox Christians are that ignornant and stupid?!

I bet if I asked all of the Orthodox Christians in this forum if they rejected the filioque, Papal Infallibilty, the Immaculate Conception, etc., because they don't believe in these things or because their ancestors didn't, they would all say because they don't believe in these things. Orthodox Christains deny and reject fundamentals of the Catholic faith for the same reasons protestants do, they believe they are a depatrue from pure and true Christian teaching, rather Roman innovations, many of which some Orthodox would consider heretical.

With your definition of heresy, there would be no heresy! The Gnotics, Nestorians, Protestants, Albigensians, etc. would all get off the hook with a simple "its not their fault that they reject dogmas of the Church........they don't know any better, it was their ancestors."

Come now! No one is so much of a fool to think Orthodox Christians don't willingly and knowingly reject Catholic dogmas as false Roman innovations.

I am sorry but if heresy isn't rejecting and fighting against fundamental dogmas of the Church......then what is?!
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 10:01:27 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
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 #75 on: April 24, 2004, 10:05:32 PM »

[What I don't understand is why does orthodox church want the byzantine catholics gone?]

The way we Orthodox look at the issue of the Unia is such -

The original reason the Unia came into being was to deceive the Orthodox into becoming part of  the Roman Catholic Church.  Because at the time of its creation the RCC  looked at us as schismatics and heretics and belived that salvation was only obtainable through the RCC.

But now if they are sincere in what they claim - namely that -

The Orthodox Catholics are the 'other lung' of the same body
That both churches are 'sister' churches
That the Orthodox have valid Sacraments
That salvation can be obtained through the Orthodox Church
That the Orthodox and Uniates share the same faith

Then there no longer either an excuse or valid reason for the Unia to exist as a separate entity and they should be returned to their mother churches from whence they came where they can obtain the same salvation that have with their step mother.

It's as simple as that.

The problem is that the Unia has an identity crisis.  They don't want to be fully Orthodox Catholic but they don't want to be fully Roman Catholic either.

The fact that both the RCC and its sui juris appendage have a problem with the above shows the Orthodox just how empty these statements make are.

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #76 on: April 24, 2004, 10:10:45 PM »

lol...."you can't blame them for something that their ancesters did". My God do you think that all of the Orthodox Christians are ignornant and stupid?! I bet if I asked all of the Orthodox Christians in this forum if they denined the filioque, Papal Infallibilty, the Immaculate Conception, etc., because they don't believe in these things or because their ancestors didn't, they would all say because they don't believe in these things. Orthodox Christains deny and reject fundamentals of the Catholic faith for the same reasons protestants do, they believe they are not true Christian teachings, rather Roman innovations, many Orthodox would consider such teachings heretical.

With your definition of heresy, there would be no heresy! The Gnotics, Nestorians, Protestants, Albigensians, etc. would all get off the hook with a simple "its not their fault that they reject dogmas of the Church........they don't know any better, it was their ancestors."

Come now! No one is so much of a fool to think Orthodox Christians don't willingly and knowingly reject Catholic dogmas as false Roman innovations.

I am sorry but if heresy isn't rejecting and fighting against fundamental dogmas of the Church......then what is?!

1. well the charge of heresy, I believe only applies to us. I can't say that I believe the church to be true then say that the pope is not infallible. You are going to have to check with canon law in this respects. I believe that there is a diference between formal/material heretics.

2. the other heresies that you mentioned are defined by church council when the church was united. anyone that denies them is a heretic and some( protetants, albigensians, etc)  where condemn as heretic by council.

3. they reject them cause they are not in the church.

4. you need to read up on the reasons why the church doesn't consider them heretics.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #77 on: April 24, 2004, 10:13:17 PM »


The Orthodox Catholics are the 'other lung' of the same body
That both churches are 'sister' churches
That the Orthodox have valid Sacraments
That salvation can be obtained through the Orthodox Church
That the Orthodox and Uniates share the same faith

Most of which are post-Vat II ecumenist positions. That are totally contrary to the offical teachings of the Catholic Church through the ages.
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
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 #78 on: April 24, 2004, 10:15:33 PM »

[I believe that this doesn't apply to the orthodox because it is not their fault that they reject dogmas of the church. You can't blame them for something that their ancestors did. ]

What in God's name are you taliking about?  How can our ancestors have rejected any thing that was never part of the UNDIVIDED CHURCH in the first place?  

Everything we Orthodox Catholics now believe you Roman Catholics also believed.  We have neither added, subtracted, or changed that which was believe everywhere and by all.  You have.

Show us where the entire undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' believed in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, or the Filioque.

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.
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 #79 on: April 24, 2004, 10:21:00 PM »

[Most of which are post-Vat II ecumenist positions. That are totally contrary to the offical teachings of the Catholic Church through the ages. ]

Exactly!  And don't you think that we Orthodox are well aware of that?  It's amazing just how many RC's are still duped by the RC word games.  We Orthodox have learned to read between the lines centuries ago.

You know the old saying --- 'Fool me once shame on you!'  'Fool me twice shame on me!'

Orthodoc

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.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #80 on: April 24, 2004, 10:23:06 PM »


Quote
1. well the charge of heresy, I believe only applies to us. I can't say that I believe the church to be true then say that the pope is not infallible. You are going to have to check with canon law in this respects. I believe that there is a diference between formal/material heretics.

You are most certainly correct, there is a difference between a formal and material heretic. But my point here is that since Orthodoxy rejects several Catholic dogmas, according to Catholic Church teaching and logic, from the Catholic point of view: Orthodoxy very well could and perhaps should be considered a heresy.

Quote
2. the other heresies that you mentioned are defined by church council when the church was united. anyone that denies them is a heretic and some( protetants, albigensians, etc)  where condemn as heretic by council.

The Catholic Church has had many ecumenical councils, which have declared the filioque, Papal Infallibilty, Immaculate Conception, etc. dogmas, and have condemned those who reject these teachings.

The Catholic Church has condemned Protestant teaching, but I do not believe a council was called just to condemn protestanism. If so, please correct me.

Quote
3. they reject them cause they are not in the church.

Exactly....and why are they not in the Catholic Church? Because they don't believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church.

Quote
4. you need to read up on the reasons why the church doesn't consider them heretics.

Is there any offical dogmas, declarations of a Church council, or Papal full clearly stating that Orthodoxy is not in/a heresy, that you could please provide?
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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2004, 10:23:58 PM »

[What I don't understand is why does orthodox church want the byzantine catholics gone?]

The way we Orthodox look at the issue of the Unia is such -

The original reason the Unia came into being was to deceive the Orthodox into becoming part of  the Roman Catholic Church.  Because at the time of its creation the RCC  looked at us as schismatics and heretics and belived that salvation was only obtainable through the RCC.

But now if they are sincere in what they claim - namely that -

The Orthodox Catholics are the 'other lung' of the same body
That both churches are 'sister' churches
That the Orthodox have valid Sacraments
That salvation can be obtained through the Orthodox Church
That the Orthodox and Uniates share the same faith

Then there no longer either an excuse or valid reason for the Unia to exist as a separate entity and they should be returned to their mother churches from whence they came where they can obtain the same salvation that have with their step mother.

It's as simple as that.

The problem is that the Unia has an identity crisis.  They don't want to be fully Orthodox Catholic but they don't want to be fully Roman Catholic either.

The fact that both the RCC and its sui juris appendage have a problem with the above shows the Orthodox just how empty these statements make are.

Orthodoc



orthodoc,

Do you really believe that they are going to accept going being part of  a church that persecuted them. They want to exist. They have a right to exist. Just as you exist apart from constantinople.

and they don't have an identity problem. they are what they are, byzantine catholics. this is what they call themselves.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2004, 10:27:24 PM »

I want everyone to know that when I talk about Orthodoxy in/a heresy, it is not to offend anyone...it is just simply presenting Catholic teaching, free of post Vat -II ecumenism.

You all know I am torn between east and west, and I do not personally believe Orthodoxy to be a heresy, at this point. But according to RCC teaching and logic, from the Catholic point of view, it would be foolish to deny it, if you were convinced the Catholic Church was the true Church.
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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #83 on: April 24, 2004, 10:33:37 PM »

[I believe that this doesn't apply to the orthodox because it is not their fault that they reject dogmas of the church. You can't blame them for something that their ancestors did. ]

What in God's name are you taliking about?  How can our ancestors have rejected any thing that was never part of the UNDIVIDED CHURCH in the first place?  

Everything we Orthodox Catholics now believe you Roman Catholics also believed.  We have neither added, subtracted, or changed that which was believe everywhere and by all.  You have.

Show us where the entire undivided One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' believed in Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, or the Filioque.

Orthodoc




well orthodoc, you too would have believe them if your church  didn't go into schism.

papal supremacy, filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception can all be read from the church fathers. papal infallibility is taken from scripture where christ command peter to feed his sheep and other passages.
Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #84 on: April 24, 2004, 10:38:26 PM »

I want everyone to know that when I talk about Orthodoxy in/a heresy, it is not to offend anyone...it is just simply presenting Catholic teaching, free of post Vat -II ecumenism.

You all know I am torn between east and west, and I do not personally believe Orthodoxy to be a heresy, at this point. But according to RCC teaching and logic, from the Catholic point of view, it would be foolish to deny it, if you were convinced the Catholic Church was the true Church.

Well, the church's teaching has changed just the way it did when the church said that it can't blame all jews for the death of christ. we can't blame them for rejecting them either by calling them heretics.

protestants fall under the council of trent and condemned for  specific heresies. at this time they were catholics. like I said heresy only applies to catholics.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2004, 10:59:56 PM »

Quote
Well, the church's teaching has changed just the way it did when the church said that it can't blame all jews for the death of christ. we can't blame them for rejecting them either by calling them heretics.

The Church can not "change its teachings". What I mean is that the Catholic Church has always taught that offical Church teachings can't just be changed. This is the problem with those who want to change Church teaching for the sake of unity. Church teaching can't be licitly changed.

The Catholic Church has never officialy taught that all Jews were/are guilty for the death of Christ. If so please provided a papal bull or declaration of an ecumenical Council, that states this.

Quote
protestants fall under the council of trent and condemned for  specific heresies. at this time they were catholics. like I said heresy only applies to catholics.

Trent was not called to condemn Protestanism. Trent was called to deal with the fragile state the Catholic Church was in at the time, and to examine what needed to be clearly defined and taught, to prevent more Protestant lies and misconceptions to grow and spread. However, Trent did address many things that the Protestants rejected, and condemned the protestants for rejecting thim.

In many Papal bulls and declarations of Catholic Ecumenical Councils have condemned those who reject Catholic dogmas, like the filioque and Papal Infallibilty. Those who teach contrary to Catholic teaching, according to the Catholic Church, are teaching heresy.

Now, if you go back through the posts you will see that I stated I do not believe Orthodox Christians are heretics. Let me explain.

A heretic is somone who was a Catholic and rejected the Catholic Church's teaching, and left the Church. This would only apply to Catholics who have converted to Orthodoxy.

However heresy is different.

Heresy is the denial of some truth which must be believed, such as the Filioque.

Catholicism still considers Gnoticism and Nestorianism a heresy, even though the vast majority of modern day Gnotics and Nestorians are not former Catholics.

Catholicism still considers Protestantism a heresy, even though most modern day proestants aren't former Catholics.

So why would it be unreasonable for Catholicism to teach Orthodoxy was or in Heresy?

Don't be fooled by the HERESY of ecumenism.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 11:03:14 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
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #86 on: April 24, 2004, 11:11:42 PM »

RB, I think that this quote from the infallible, ex cathedra and binding papal bull Unam Sanctam clearly puts the Orthodox Christians in a not so happy position:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302).

As does this quote from the fourth Lateran Council:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

And last but not least, the infallible and binding papal bull of Cantate Domino:

"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 have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, 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 by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2004, 11:14:37 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
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #87 on: April 24, 2004, 11:15:59 PM »

After reading the above quotes, anyone can see the clear departure of the ecumenists and their false hopes from offical Catholic teaching.
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
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #88 on: April 25, 2004, 12:09:47 AM »

indeed Ben, indeed.  

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #89 on: April 25, 2004, 12:57:51 AM »

RB, I think that this quote from the infallible, ex cathedra and binding papal bull Unam Sanctam clearly puts the Orthodox Christians in a not so happy position:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302).

As does this quote from the fourth Lateran Council:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

And last but not least, the infallible and binding papal bull of Cantate Domino:

"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 have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, 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 by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the 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 he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)


That there is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church we are compelled by faith to believe and hold, and we firmly believe in her and sincerely confess her, outside of whom there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.....FURTHERMORE WE DECLARE, STATE AND DEFINE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE SALVATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS THAT THEY SUBMIT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF [Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis]."

1.  non catholics cannot submit to the pope. only catholics can submit to the pope. not orthodox, etc.. unless they become catholics.
2. second sentence is infallibly defined. first sentence must be infallibly defined.

Not really. The document has to be put in its historical/catholic theological context.  both statements are true. The historical context is the struggle between Philip IV of France and Edward I of England  with the Pope Pope Boniface VIII in 1296. You need to read it in its historical context.

Outside the church no salvation

847. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." [Vatican II LG 16]

think of invicible ignorance. just the ways the fathers taught that those who were ignorant of scriptures salvation was still open to them in a mysterious way.




« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 01:01:13 AM by romanbyzantium » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #90 on: April 25, 2004, 01:04:46 AM »

all I can say, is that in the mind of Rome I must be an apostate and a heretic.  I couldn't be happier.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #91 on: April 25, 2004, 01:18:34 AM »


Quote
1.  non catholics cannot submit to the pope. only catholics can submit to the pope. not orthodox, etc.. unless they become catholics.

Seriously, did you even read my post. The quote from the infallible papal bull Unam Sanctam, clearly states EVERY HUMAN CREATURE must submitt to the Roman Pontiff. It doesn't say just Catholics, rather EVERY HUMAN CREATURE. Furthermore, the quote from the the fourth Lateran clearly states "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."


Quote
Not really. The document has to be put in its historical/catholic theological context.  both statements are true. The historical context is the struggle between Philip IV of France and Edward I of England  with the Pope Pope Boniface VIII in 1296. You need to read it in its historical context.

You are missing the point. No matter what the historical context the Catholic Church teaches that those bulls and the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils are free from all error, by the grace of the Holy Ghost. This is a fundamental article of the Catholic faith.

Quote
847. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." [Vatican II LG 16]

I am assuming this is from the Catechism, you didn't say....but I'm pretty
sure thats where you go it from. I never said that those who never heard the gospel if grace were totally damned, and I dont think Pope Urban VIII was trying to say that either. But Proestants, Gnostics, Orthodox, Nestorians...etc. have heard the gospel of Christ yet still deny and reject fundamentals of the Catholic faith.
 

« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 01:20:20 AM 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
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #92 on: April 25, 2004, 01:37:47 AM »

all I can say, is that in the mind of Rome I must be an apostate and a heretic.  I couldn't be happier.

Joe Zollars

hehehe.......you better hope Catholicism isn't the true Church Wink
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 01:38:27 AM 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
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #93 on: April 25, 2004, 10:12:14 AM »

"For example, the Spanish Church had been reciting the Filioque long before the Schism yet the East did not feel it was an issue worthy of schism until after the Photian/1054 schisms."

1.  The East only became gradually aware of the filioque, being as it was, in Spain.
2.  The POPES rejected the filioque, consistently and strongly until the Franks took over the Papacy, and the Franks brought their Filioque with them into the Papacy and would listen to noone.  That is what really happened.
Logged

B
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #94 on: April 25, 2004, 11:08:58 AM »

Seriously, did you even read my post. The quote from the infallible papal bull Unam Sanctam, clearly states EVERY HUMAN CREATURE must submitt to the Roman Pontiff. It doesn't say just Catholics, rather EVERY HUMAN CREATURE. Furthermore, the quote from the the fourth Lateran clearly states "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."You are missing the point. No matter what the historical context the Catholic Church teaches that those bulls and the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils are free from all error, by the grace of the Holy Ghost. This is a fundamental article of the Catholic faith.I am assuming this is from the Catechism, you didn't say....but I'm pretty
sure thats where you go it from. I never said that those who never heard the gospel if grace were totally damned, and I dont think Pope Urban VIII was trying to say that either. But Proestants, Gnostics, Orthodox, Nestorians...etc. have heard the gospel of Christ yet still deny and reject fundamentals of the Catholic faith.
 



Ben,

The Bull was directed at the FRENCH catholics in the 14th century. They  where not submitting to the pope. You can't apply a bull to people that didn't exist in the 14 century. This goes against catholic teachings and theology.

 You can't take a document and take it out of its historical context ( Bull in its historical setting in the conflict between Pope Boniface VIII and the Catholic king of France, Philip IV) and apply elsewhere. Read about the conflict that prompted the pope to issue it.

Read why the bull was issued.

Read the catholic encyclopedia and other historians to get an understanding of the historical context and why the Bull was issued.

btw, I did read what you wrote. Cheesy
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 11:17:43 AM by romanbyzantium » Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #95 on: April 25, 2004, 11:10:44 AM »

"For example, the Spanish Church had been reciting the Filioque long before the Schism yet the East did not feel it was an issue worthy of schism until after the Photian/1054 schisms."

1.  The East only became gradually aware of the filioque, being as it was, in Spain.
2.  The POPES rejected the filioque, consistently and strongly until the Franks took over the Papacy, and the Franks brought their Filioque with them into the Papacy and would listen to noone.  That is what really happened.

When the Franks did supposedly do this, you know taking over the papacy.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 11:11:45 AM by romanbyzantium » Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #96 on: April 25, 2004, 11:16:47 AM »

all I can say, is that in the mind of Rome I must be an apostate and a heretic.  I couldn't be happier.

Joe Zollars

Sorry to dissapoint you but, Rome doesn't think that at all. But rest assure there are some traditionalist catholics that most certainly do.

Just like there are orthodox who believe that we are heretics. and that is ok. What can you do, the world is not perfect. It does make the world interesting though. Smiley
Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #97 on: April 25, 2004, 12:21:08 PM »

hehehe.......you better hope Catholicism isn't the true Church Wink

Oh I think this thread has done a wonderful job of alaying any doupts I may or rather did not have.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #98 on: April 25, 2004, 12:23:20 PM »

Ben,

The Bull was directed at the FRENCH catholics in the 14th century. They  where not submitting to the pope. You can't apply a bull to people that didn't exist in the 14 century. This goes against catholic teachings and theology.

 You can't take a document and take it out of its historical context ( Bull in its historical setting in the conflict between Pope Boniface VIII and the Catholic king of France, Philip IV) and apply elsewhere. Read about the conflict that prompted the pope to issue it.

Read why the bull was issued.

Read the catholic encyclopedia and other historians to get an understanding of the historical context and why the Bull was issued.

btw, I did read what you wrote. Cheesy

From what I remember, Bulls and other papal documents while they may be issued in a particular historic setting due constitute part of the "Infallable Teaching Magisterium of the Church."

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #99 on: April 25, 2004, 12:25:50 PM »

Why did the Pope originally reject and affirm the anathamas against the filioque and even go so far as to inscribe the Creed (in its original Filioque-less) version in Gold Plates on the doors of Old St. Peter's Basilica?

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #100 on: April 25, 2004, 01:01:00 PM »

Why did the Pope originally reject and affirm the anathamas against the filioque and even go so far as to inscribe the Creed (in its original Filioque-less) version in Gold Plates on the doors of Old St. Peter's Basilica?

Joe Zollars

Joe,

Do you remember in the bible when Jesus breathes on his apostles and said receive the holy spirit?  If the holy spirit does proceed from the son then what was Jesus doing?

Anyway, why don't you read the documents on this matter. and I believe that many church fathers taught it as well. and the filiouque does not in anyway dimishes the kingship of the father.
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 #101 on: April 25, 2004, 02:24:54 PM »

[Do you remember in the bible when Jesus breathes on his apostles and said receive the holy spirit?  If the holy spirit does proceed from the son then what was Jesus doing?]

How about giving us the passage and where it can be found?

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.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #102 on: April 25, 2004, 04:41:44 PM »

Quote
The Bull was directed at the FRENCH catholics in the 14th century. They  where not submitting to the pope. You can't apply a bull to people that didn't exist in the 14 century. This goes against catholic teachings and theology.

No where in the Bull are French Catholics mentioned. And believe it or not Orthodox Christians did exsist in the 14th century, and they weren't submiting to the Pope either, this is part of the reason this bull and the declarations of the Catholic Councils of Florence and the Lateran Councils were so harsh and strict regarding the dogmas that the East rejected, such as the Filioque and Papal Supremacy.

The bulls I quoted are considered infallible by the Catholic Church, as are the declarations of the Council of Florence and the Lateran Councils. You want to blame it all on the historical environment at the time. You are so caught up in the ecumenist teachings of many Catholics these days that go totaly against offical Church teaching. I have provided you with quotes from Infallible documents, supporting what I am saying, yet you fail to provided one Papal Bull or declaration of a Catholic Ecumenical Council that says the Orthodox aren't heretics and they don't need to submitt to the Roman Pontiff, and only Catholics have to believe in the Papacy.

Quote
Sorry to dissapoint you but, Rome doesn't think that at all. But rest assure there are some traditionalist catholics that most certainly do.

Any proof? According to the teaching of the Catholic Church Joe is an apostate and a heretic because he is leaving the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church.

You seem to change your story a lot. First, you said only radical traditionalists say the Orthodox Church is schismatic/heretical. Then you said the Catholic Church teaches the Orthodox Church to be schismatic, I called you on this, and you said you mispoke, and the Orthodox Church is schismatic, but Orthodox Christians not heretics, because only those leaving the Catholic Church can be considered heretics. Then you tell Joe he wouldn't be considered a heretic by Rome, even though you said those Catholics rejecting Church teaching are heretics.

You are sure mixed up.

Quote
The POPES rejected the filioque, consistently and strongly until the Franks took over the Papacy, and the Franks brought their Filioque with them into the Papacy and would listen to noone.  That is what really happened.


Brendan, from my understanding Rome was very careful with the Filioque before the Frankish reforms, by giving some areas premission to recite the filioque, while not doing so on the altars of Rome. I was unaware that Rome spoke out against the Filioque strongly, I am wondering if you could provide any Papal bulls or encylicals that show these pre-frankish reforms Popes, speaking out against the Filioque strongly.

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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #103 on: April 25, 2004, 05:26:43 PM »

No where in the Bull are French Catholics mentioned. And believe it or not Orthodox Christians did exsist in the 14th century, and they weren't submiting to the Pope either, this is part of the reason this bull and the declarations of the Catholic Councils of Florence and the Lateran Councils were so harsh and strict regarding the dogmas that the East rejected, such as the Filioque and Papal Supremacy.

The bulls I quoted are considered infallible by the Catholic Church, as are the declarations of the Council of Florence and the Lateran Councils. You want to blame it all on the historical environment at the time. You are so caught up in the ecumenist teachings of many Catholics these days that go totaly against offical Church teaching. I have provided you with quotes from Infallible documents, supporting what I am saying, yet you fail to provided one Papal Bull or declaration of a Catholic Ecumenical Council that says the Orthodox aren't heretics and they don't need to submitt to the Roman Pontiff, and only Catholics have to believe in the Papacy.Any proof? According to the teaching of the Catholic Church Joe is an apostate and a heretic because he is leaving the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church.

You seem to change your story a lot. First, you said only radical traditionalists say the Orthodox Church is schismatic/heretical. Then you said the Catholic Church teaches the Orthodox Church to be schismatic, I called you on this, and you said you mispoke, and the Orthodox Church is schismatic, but Orthodox Christians not heretics, because only those leaving the Catholic Church can be considered heretics. Then you tell Joe he wouldn't be considered a heretic by Rome, even though you said those Catholics rejecting Church teaching are heretics.

You are sure mixed up.

Brendan, from my understanding Rome was very careful with the Filioque before the Frankish reforms, by giving some areas premission to recite the filioque, while not doing so on the altars of Rome. I was unaware that Rome spoke out against the Filioque strongly, I am wondering if you could provide any Papal bulls or encylicals that show these pre-frankish reforms Popes, speaking out against the Filioque strongly.

 

Ben

1. Do you think that rome on day decided issue that bull without a reason? read the facts first, as to the reasons behind that bull.

2. I didn't know that Joe was a catholic and left. If he did then he is an apostate according to church teaching. So, I am not changing my story.

3. Do you have a catechism? look at it.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #104 on: April 25, 2004, 05:31:41 PM »

Quote
1. Do you think that rome on day decided issue that bull without a reason? read the facts first, as to the reasons behind that bull.

No, but I am saying that no matter the motives the bull is still infallible, and if you noticed the quote from the papal bull Cantante Domino, it clear states all Jews, Pagan, Heretics, and Schismatics, have no salavation, unless they repent and convert.

Quote
2. I didn't know that Joe was a catholic and left. If he did then he is an apostate according to church teaching. So, I am not changing my story.

If you didn't know about Joe, I understand.

Quote
3. Do you have a catechism? look at it.

Got the good old Baltimore Catechism  Wink
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 05:41:30 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
Surge
Guest
« Reply #105 on: April 25, 2004, 09:25:18 PM »

Thanks to Vatican II the differences do not matter to Roman Catholics anymore. If the EP and other patriarchs have concelebrated with the Pope than we may as well be in communion!
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 #106 on: April 25, 2004, 09:53:10 PM »

[ If the EP and other patriarchs have concelebrated with the Pope than we may as well be in communion!]

When and where?  Be careful there is a big difference between attending a Liturgy and 'concelebrating' a Liturgy.

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.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,407



« Reply #107 on: April 25, 2004, 10:01:17 PM »

I think it's a troll, Orthodoc. and it's not even April Fools Day on the Julian Calender....  

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #108 on: April 25, 2004, 10:05:27 PM »

Thanks to Vatican II the differences do not matter to Roman Catholics anymore. If the EP and other patriarchs have concelebrated with the Pope than we may as well be in communion!

Vatican II isn't all to blame, it is a huge factor in the cause of the all too comon ecumenism that is present amoung modern day Catholics, clergy and laypeople, more and more.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches aren't in communion, period.

My local GOA priest won't even let me recieve communion at his parish. And for sure an Orthodox Christian couldn't recieve communion at my parish, they would be sent back to their pew from the rail (that should give you an idea of what kind of parish I attend Wink).

However, people like RB could decieve the priest and recieve communion anyway....which you be a sacralige against the blessed Sacrament....our Lord's body and blood.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 10:07:57 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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #109 on: April 25, 2004, 10:25:53 PM »

Vatican II isn't all to blame, it is a huge factor in the cause of the all too comon ecumenism that is present amoung modern day Catholics, clergy and laypeople, more and more.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches aren't in communion, period.

My local GOA priest won't even let me recieve communion at his parish. And for sure an Orthodox Christian couldn't recieve communion at my parish, they would be sent back to their pew from the rail (that should give you an idea of what kind of parish I attend Wink).

However, people like RB could decieve the priest and recieve communion anyway....which you be a sacralige against the blessed Sacrament....our Lord's body and blood.

I didn't deceive anyone, Ben! Those priest know my family.

Ben, I amgoing to have to ask you for the group membership card. You can't dis ( ghetto talk) a club member. Tongue

I am going to take it straight to the TOP.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 10:27:16 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #110 on: April 25, 2004, 10:35:29 PM »

Quote
I didn't deceive anyone, Ben! Those priest know my family.

So the priest knew you were not Orthodox? Wow that is most certainly surpirising. Are sure this was an Orthodox church?

Quote
Ben, I amgoing to have to ask you for the group membership card. You can't dis ( ghetto talk) a club member. Tongue

Hey Mr. Ghetto talk, I'll have none of this trendy language. What would Archbishop Lefebvre (God rest his soul) think?!

Quote
I am going to take it straight to the TOP.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look, I have connections at the top.....wait and see what happens to you next time you apporach the communion rail....muwahahahahaha
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 10:45:07 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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #111 on: April 25, 2004, 10:43:34 PM »

So the priest knew you were not Orthodox? Wow that is most certainly surpirising. Are sure this was an Orthodox church?Hey Mr. Ghetto talk, I'll have none of this trendy language. What would Archbishop Lefebvre (God rest his soul) think?!Look, I have connections at the top.....wait and see what happens to you next time you apporach the communion rail....

Well, I didn't volunteer the information either. But, lets say that the priest knew my family. I have orthodox family, if you didn't know.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #112 on: April 25, 2004, 10:47:40 PM »

I have orthodox family

If I was one of your Orthodox family members that witnessed this outrage, I would have slapped you upside your head...... Grin
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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #113 on: April 25, 2004, 10:49:48 PM »

If I was one of your Orthodox family members that witnessed this outrage, I would have slapped you upside your head...... Grin

we europeans are not a violent people. we are civilized and cultured. It is the rest of the world that has a problem.  Wink
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #114 on: April 25, 2004, 10:52:21 PM »

Ya tell that to my Italian grandmother who beats me everythime I stick my fingers in the bowl of Polenta, to get a taste before my cousins come in a stampid and try to eat it before I even get a wiff of it....just to piss me off
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
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 #115 on: April 25, 2004, 11:23:26 PM »

[we europeans are not a violent people. we are civilized and cultured. It is the rest of the world that has a problem. ]

So tell us, what part of Europe do you reside in?

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.
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #116 on: April 25, 2004, 11:26:08 PM »

[we europeans are not a violent people. we are civilized and cultured. It is the rest of the world that has a problem. ]

So tell us, what part of Europe do you reside in?

Orthodoc

presently, I am in NYC. I have been in this country for about 5 years.
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #117 on: April 25, 2004, 11:33:06 PM »

so English is your second language?! That explains soooooo much.
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
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #118 on: April 25, 2004, 11:37:01 PM »

so English is your second language?! That explains soooooo much.



What is that supposed to mean?

actually it is my 3rd.

I speak spanish, Italian, english and french ( 5th grade level) not fluent enough. still can't think in french.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2004, 11:37:54 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #119 on: April 26, 2004, 02:48:14 AM »

Christos Anesti!  Christ is Risen!

Well, I didn't volunteer the information either. But, lets say that the priest knew my family. I have orthodox family, if you didn't know.

So the priest does NOT know you are not Orthodox but is assuming you are because other members of your family are. If you do the right thing and inform the priest you are not Orthodox, you will see that he will not commune you again under any circumstances (save you being baptised or chrismated in the church) because it is clearly wrong for him to do so.

RB, please examine your motives. You are sinning and you are causing the priest to sin. Is this something the Holy Spirit is going to lead you to do?

John
Logged
Shiloah
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb.11:1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


www.balamand.edu.lb/ th...JoTheklaCan.htm


WWW
« Reply #120 on: April 27, 2004, 09:11:50 AM »

Could all this relate to 2.Thess.2:3-4 somehow? "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
 4.  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

I went to look up something on the pages of http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html and the first sentence you see is
"  The history of the Patriarchate begins from the first Christian community in the years of the Apostles. The Church and the Episcopacy of Jerusalem was and is the "Mother of all Churches".  "

May I continue with Mt.20:26-28 " But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
 27.  And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
 28.  Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Does any Pope or Patriarch still care about John 17 and the prayers of our Lord? Do they really appreciate the words of admonition of the Apostle in Eph.4:1-7: "  I Therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
 2.  With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
 3.  Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
 4.  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
 5.  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
 6.  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
 7.  But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."

Or are they only interested in their own 'primacy' and self-righteousness ? Is Jesus really having "pre-eminence" in their 'kingdom' ? When they say that they believe in 'one holy apostolic etc. church' - which one do they have in mind?

I have in mind the Body of Christ which is the Church - but how do they appropriate this if they are bound up in grave cloths like Lazarus? Jesus called Lazarus forth. He called him to come out - like He is calling us today to come out of our tombs and to be 'The Ekklesia' - the called out ones.

You can discuss all you want to, Gentlemen - it is the devil who is the author of confusion - (he delights in dis-cord, dis-cussions, dis-harmony, dis-memberment, dis-tortion, dis-appointments, dis-functions, dis-..., dis-... , dis-... which  implies the meaning 'apart, asunder, separately,  a very actual picture of The Church in MHO)  and comes only to steal, kill and destroy, see John 10:10 for those who need to be reminded that it is Jesus Christ alone Who has come to bring Life - not the Church.

This is our dis-ease like leprosy eating away at the body. But CHRIST IS RISEN! INDEED HE IS RISEN!  When will we begin to live up to the standard and manifest the Risen Body, healed completely of all diseases, restored and glorious?

Shoshana, being martyred by your words

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
 2.  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
 3.  For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." Heb.12:1-3
Logged

"God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" 2.Cor.4:6

"One thing is education: that we learn how to love God. "
theodore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #121 on: April 27, 2004, 10:39:36 AM »

presently, I am in NYC. I have been in this country for about 5 years.
If Europe is so great and so non-violent, why on earth are you residing in such an uncivilized and barbaric place as the United States?  :cwm13:
Logged
JoeS
(aka StMarkEofE)
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,122


Global Warming Enthusiast.


« Reply #122 on: April 27, 2004, 11:11:34 AM »

To us Orthodox, the Filioque renders the Holy Spirit dependent on the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. We believe this lessens the Personhood of the Holy Spirit.  We do know for certain that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father according to the Councils. This we can all agree on.  

JoeS Cool

Joe,

Do you remember in the bible when Jesus breathes on his apostles and said receive the holy spirit?  If the holy spirit does proceed from the son then what was Jesus doing?

Anyway, why don't you read the documents on this matter. and I believe that many church fathers taught it as well. and the filiouque does not in anyway dimishes the kingship of the father.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #123 on: April 27, 2004, 11:21:37 AM »

Quote
Well, I didn't volunteer the information either. But, lets say that the priest knew my family. I have orthodox family, if you didn't know.

No, we didnt' know that, because by the tone of your posts, you are Western as Western gets and any one who is Orthodox must be culturall eastern in your eyes.

*sniff sniff*  I really smell a load of bull....
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #124 on: April 27, 2004, 11:54:44 AM »

Could all this relate to 2.Thess.2:3-4 somehow? "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
 4.  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

I went to look up something on the pages of http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html and the first sentence you see is
"  The history of the Patriarchate begins from the first Christian community in the years of the Apostles. The Church and the Episcopacy of Jerusalem was and is the "Mother of all Churches".  "

May I continue with Mt.20:26-28 " But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
 27.  And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
 28.  Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

Does any Pope or Patriarch still care about John 17 and the prayers of our Lord? Do they really appreciate the words of admonition of the Apostle in Eph.4:1-7: "  I Therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
 2.  With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
 3.  Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
 4.  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
 5.  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
 6.  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
 7.  But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."

Or are they only interested in their own 'primacy' and self-righteousness ? Is Jesus really having "pre-eminence" in their 'kingdom' ? When they say that they believe in 'one holy apostolic etc. church' - which one do they have in mind?

I have in mind the Body of Christ which is the Church - but how do they appropriate this if they are bound up in grave cloths like Lazarus? Jesus called Lazarus forth. He called him to come out - like He is calling us today to come out of our tombs and to be 'The Ekklesia' - the called out ones.

You can discuss all you want to, Gentlemen - it is the devil who is the author of confusion - (he delights in dis-cord, dis-cussions, dis-harmony, dis-memberment, dis-tortion, dis-appointments, dis-functions, dis-..., dis-... , dis-... which  implies the meaning 'apart, asunder, separately,  a very actual picture of The Church in MHO)  and comes only to steal, kill and destroy, see John 10:10 for those who need to be reminded that it is Jesus Christ alone Who has come to bring Life - not the Church.

This is our dis-ease like leprosy eating away at the body. But CHRIST IS RISEN! INDEED HE IS RISEN!  When will we begin to live up to the standard and manifest the Risen Body, healed completely of all diseases, restored and glorious?

Shoshana, being martyred by your words

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
 2.  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
 3.  For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." Heb.12:1-3


I only disagree with one thing you say.  Indeed, it is Christ who comes to bring life, but he works through his Church.  More accurately, the Church is the body of Christ, and so, in that sense, it is indeed the Church that brings life.

Having said that, I think you hit the nail square on the head when you point out that the apostles are still arguing about who is the greatest.  I think that if more people understood the Gospels as prophecy, we'd have a lot more insight into our present condition.
Logged

NULL
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 #125 on: April 27, 2004, 12:30:16 PM »

'[*sniff sniff*  I really smell a load of bull....]

So do I Schultz.  So do i!

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.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #126 on: April 27, 2004, 02:31:54 PM »

Troll scat (for you hunters out there)...

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #127 on: April 27, 2004, 02:34:06 PM »

lol

Joe zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #128 on: April 27, 2004, 02:47:24 PM »

Demetri,

I like your avatar, is it a Jerusalem cross ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #129 on: April 27, 2004, 04:36:48 PM »

no that's the flag of Georgia if memory serves me correctly.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #130 on: April 27, 2004, 04:51:22 PM »

Jaroslav Pelikan, in his volume on the history of the Eastern Church, does a great job of explaining the reasoning behind the general consensus among the Eastern Fathers that the filioque should be repudiated.  That reasoning is really quite interesting, and I find it persuasive.

To risk putting it in the form of a crude syllogism:  The Holy Spirit must proceed either from the Essence (Ousia) of God, which is shared in by the three Persons (Hypostases) of the Godhead, or from one of the Persons of the Godhead.  

That which is shared among the Persons is of the Essence, and must be shared in by all three Persons, not merely by two of the three.  Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then He must proceed from the Divine Essence (from the Ousia of God).  In that case, if one speaks of this in terms of the Persons of God, He must proceed from each of them equally, including from the Holy Spirit Himself.  But, that is absurd; the Holy Spirit obviously cannot be said to proceed from Himself.

Therefore, the Divine cause of the Holy Spirit's procession is found, not in God's Essence, but is personal/hypostatic.  In other words, the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession must be a Person of the Godhead, not God's interpersonal Essence.  And the Scriptural witness and Tradition make it clear that, among the Persons, it is the Father from Whom the Holy Spirit most clearly proceeds.  To suggest otherwise would be to attack the monarchy of the Father within the Holy Trinity.

The Eastern Fathers who wrote against the filioque argued that those scriptural passages such as that in which Jesus breathes on the apostles must be read as as symbolic references to Jesus' identity with the Father (not, of course, a literal, hypostatic identity, but an identity stemming from Jesus' absolute conformity to His Father's will), but not as "procession" in the same sense in which the Conciliar Fathers spoke in the Creed in affirming that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father."

Succinctly put, the filioque is inconsistant with Trinitarian theology.  According to Pelikan, the fine points of that theology were not fully grasped by Western theologians, who were less adept at, or familiar with, philosophical reasoning than were their Byzantine counterparts.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2004, 05:30:35 PM by ambrosemzv » Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #131 on: April 27, 2004, 07:10:16 PM »

No, we didnt' know that, because by the tone of your posts, you are Western as Western gets and any one who is Orthodox must be culturall eastern in your eyes.

*sniff sniff*  I really smell a load of bull....

and you are not western?HuhHuhHuhHuh

There is nothing wrong with being proud of what you are.

you are western even if you converted to orthodoxy.

Well, they are different. that would like something along the line of a black republican.  BTW,  I do have orthodox family members by marriage which produced children (cousins). I am myself purely western.

the problem is that the orthodox that is represented here is not the norm, out there in the real world it is very different. Converts tend to be more orthodox than the orthodox. just like converts to the catholic faith tend to be more catholic than the pope.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2004, 07:11:36 PM by romanbyzantium » Logged
romanbyzantium
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 479


OC.net


« Reply #132 on: April 27, 2004, 07:16:02 PM »

Jaroslav Pelikan, in his volume on the history of the Eastern Church, does a great job of explaining the reasoning behind the general consensus among the Eastern Fathers that the filioque should be repudiated.  That reasoning is really quite interesting, and I find it persuasive.

To risk putting it in the form of a crude syllogism:  The Holy Spirit must proceed either from the Essence (Ousia) of God, which is shared in by the three Persons (Hypostases) of the Godhead, or from one of the Persons of the Godhead.  

That which is shared among the Persons is of the Essence, and must be shared in by all three Persons, not merely by two of the three.  Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then He must proceed from the Divine Essence (from the Ousia of God).  In that case, if one speaks of this in terms of the Persons of God, He must proceed from each of them equally, including from the Holy Spirit Himself.  But, that is absurd; the Holy Spirit obviously cannot be said to proceed from Himself.

Therefore, the Divine cause of the Holy Spirit's procession is found, not in God's Essence, but is personal/hypostatic.  In other words, the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession must be a Person of the Godhead, not God's interpersonal Essence.  And the Scriptural witness and Tradition make it clear that, among the Persons, it is the Father from Whom the Holy Spirit most clearly proceeds.  To suggest otherwise would be to attack the monarchy of the Father within the Holy Trinity.

The Eastern Fathers who wrote against the filioque argued that those scriptural passages such as that in which Jesus breathes on the apostles must be read as as symbolic references to Jesus' identity with the Father (not, of course, a literal, hypostatic identity, but an identity stemming from Jesus' absolute conformity to His Father's will), but not as "procession" in the same sense in which the Conciliar Fathers spoke in the Creed in affirming that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father."

Succinctly put, the filioque is inconsistant with Trinitarian theology.  According to Pelikan, the fine points of that theology were not fully grasped by Western theologians, who were less adept at, or familiar with, philosophical reasoning than were their Byzantine counterparts.

So when jesus says " receive the holy spirit" it was just symbolism?

we respectfully disagree.  nor does the filioque challenge the monarchy of the father.
Logged
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #133 on: April 27, 2004, 07:22:15 PM »

I think it is interesting that church property, broken agreements, proselytizing, etc. still divide east and west more than the dogmatic differences. On both sides people seem to be more wrapped up in Church politics and material disputes, than what really seperates us: the fundamental dogmatic differences.

Ben, I think the truth of the matter is that those other issues have more to do with the continuing divisions than the dogmatic ones.  If the dogmatic ones were all there was to it, the bishops could sit down and have a council, and these issues would be resolved.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #134 on: April 27, 2004, 07:34:18 PM »

Jaroslav Pelikan, in his volume on the history of the Eastern Church, does a great job of explaining the reasoning behind the general consensus among the Eastern Fathers that the filioque should be repudiated.  That reasoning is really quite interesting, and I find it persuasive.

To risk putting it in the form of a crude syllogism:  The Holy Spirit must proceed either from the Essence (Ousia) of God, which is shared in by the three Persons (Hypostases) of the Godhead, or from one of the Persons of the Godhead.  

That which is shared among the Persons is of the Essence, and must be shared in by all three Persons, not merely by two of the three.  Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then He must proceed from the Divine Essence (from the Ousia of God).  In that case, if one speaks of this in terms of the Persons of God, He must proceed from each of them equally, including from the Holy Spirit Himself.  But, that is absurd; the Holy Spirit obviously cannot be said to proceed from Himself.

Therefore, the Divine cause of the Holy Spirit's procession is found, not in God's Essence, but is personal/hypostatic.  In other words, the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession must be a Person of the Godhead, not God's interpersonal Essence.  And the Scriptural witness and Tradition make it clear that, among the Persons, it is the Father from Whom the Holy Spirit most clearly proceeds.  To suggest otherwise would be to attack the monarchy of the Father within the Holy Trinity.

The Eastern Fathers who wrote against the filioque argued that those scriptural passages such as that in which Jesus breathes on the apostles must be read as as symbolic references to Jesus' identity with the Father (not, of course, a literal, hypostatic identity, but an identity stemming from Jesus' absolute conformity to His Father's will), but not as "procession" in the same sense in which the Conciliar Fathers spoke in the Creed in affirming that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father."

Succinctly put, the filioque is inconsistant with Trinitarian theology.  According to Pelikan, the fine points of that theology were not fully grasped by Western theologians, who were less adept at, or familiar with, philosophical reasoning than were their Byzantine counterparts.

That's a very interesting argument, but it seems to suggest that the Trinity and the relations between the Persons can be understood by reasoning.  The fact is, we only understand the Trinity by revelation.  Assuming that the seven Ecumenical Councils can serve as a common point of reference between the Orthodox and Catholics, Constantinople I said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.  It did not say that he does not proceed from the Son or that he proceeds from the Father only.  I don't think that saying that it somehow doesn't make any sense to say that he proceeds from both Father and Son cuts any mustard; the Trinity doesn't make any sense, but it's true.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #135 on: April 27, 2004, 10:04:46 PM »

If the dogmatic ones were all there was to it, the bishops could sit down and have a council, and these issues would be resolved.

Argh....this is where I bang my head against my keyboard....

I honestly believe that if the dogmatic differences were all there was to solve, we'd still be just as seperated.

How do you think such dogmatic differences such as the Filioque, Papal Infallibilty, Purgatory, the Immaculate conception, etc. can be resolved by a council? I really don't see how!

The Orthodox Church teaches iteself to be the true Church and rejects all of these Roman Catholic dogmas as Papal innovations. The Catholic Church teaches iteself to be the true Church, and believes these dogmas to be totally infallible and nessicary for salvation. Now how in heck are you going to reconcile the two, unless one side joins the other, ex. the Catholic Church rejects the Filioque, Papal Infallibilty, the Immaculate Conception, etc, and joins the Orthodox Church.

I am trying, trying very hard to see how Orthodoxy and Catholicism could ever be united without one side, or even both sides, making serious dogmatic compromises, which would be impossible, unless the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church stops professing itself to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
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 #136 on: April 27, 2004, 10:12:52 PM »

Assuming that the seven Ecumenical Councils can serve as a common point of reference between the Orthodox and Catholics, Constantinople I said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.  It did not say that he does not proceed from the Son or that he proceeds from the Father only.

1) An Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Father and the Son. The West began to use the filioque and by the 11th century condemned the East for not using it. This is a big deal because the Western Church, or the Roman Church, was changing something that was declared by an Ecumenical council, without the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

2) But beyond this there are theological problems with the filioque, that  have already been stated in this thread.

3) Yes, the Trinity doesn't make sense, and we don't understand everything, but if you examine how the early Church and how the Church fathers explained the Trinity, the Filioque makes little, to no sense.

Now I am not saying the 3 things above make the Filioque totally false, just questionable, and something to really think about.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2004, 11:17:40 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
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #137 on: April 28, 2004, 12:00:59 AM »

Quote
3) Yes, the Trinity doesn't make sense, and we don't understand everything, but if you examine how the early Church and how the Church fathers explained the Trinity, the Filioque makes little, to no sense.

I think that is why the Orthodox choose not to cram the awesome and mysteriousness of the Infinite and Almighty God into finite terms that we poor humans can comprehend.

Holy Orthodoxy prefers to think of these sorts of things as uncomprehensible, hence they truly are a Holy Mystery and we are better off leaving things that way and not creating dogmas like the Immaculate Conception and purgatory.

After all, if we can define the ways of an Almighty God, then who is truly the god?

In Christ,
Aaron
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #138 on: April 28, 2004, 12:09:29 AM »

I agree with you Aaron, but if you take it too far, you end up with us having no creed, nothing, not even terms to describe God, we'd be too afraid to define him. But if we define him to the point where there is no mystery, nothing but legalistic terms that really limit God, we'd be really missing the whole point of Christ's message. I think there has to be a balance between the two.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2004, 12:10:50 AM 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
Arystarcus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 836


« Reply #139 on: April 28, 2004, 12:17:20 AM »

Quote
I agree with you Aaron, but if you take it too far, you end up with us having no creed, nothing, not even terms to describe God, we'd be too afraid to define him. But if we define him to the point where there is no mystery, nothing but legalistic terms that really limit God, we'd be really missing the whole point of Christ's message. I think there has to be a balance between the two.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the points you bring up - how very true!

I think that Holy Orthodoxy truly believes that that is what Roman Catholicism has done, defined everything in a legalistic manner to the point of having taken it further than it needed to go and that Holy Orthodoxy is the balance between the two.

At least that is how I have perceived the Orthodox standpoint on this issue.

In Christ,
Aaron
« Last Edit: April 28, 2004, 12:18:38 AM by Arystarcus » Logged
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #140 on: April 28, 2004, 12:22:45 AM »

that would like something along the line of a black republican.  

I am sorry to bring politics into this, but I would point out that from a historical standpoint, it has been the democrat who is the enemy of the 'black man.'  Let us not forget that Abe Lincoln was the first Republican President (not that that says much IMO).  However let us not forget how the democrat party has attempted to enslave the black inhabitants of this country (as well as other minorities) time and time again.

Black republicans? how about Condalica Rice, Alan Keyes, etc etc etc.  Fact is, your average black person is in my experience more conservative than your average white person.  I have even met a few that make me look liberal--and that is VERY hard to do. Shocked

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #141 on: April 28, 2004, 12:27:15 AM »

I agree with you Aaron, but if you take it too far, you end up with us having no creed, nothing, not even terms to describe God, we'd be too afraid to define him. But if we define him to the point where there is no mystery, nothing but legalistic terms that really limit God, we'd be really missing the whole point of Christ's message. I think there has to be a balance between the two.

You bring up a good point Ben.  From my perspective, it appears that Orthodoxy is the balance between two extremes.  Orthodoxy is the balance between the anti-intelectualism of protestantism on one hand, and the scholasticism of the Roman Church on the other.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #142 on: April 28, 2004, 12:37:07 AM »

I am sorry to bring politics into this, but I would point out that from a historical standpoint, it has been the democrat who is the enemy of the 'black man.'

I was going to say something about his "like a black republican" comment, but didn't want to cause any political debate. I agree Joe if you look back in the past the Democratic party hasn't been the best friend of African Americans. But you bring up old history...19th century stuff. If you look at modern American history, esp the past 40 years or so, the Democratic Party has been the friend of the "black man". From the civil rights movment, to equal oppurtunity, to affirmative action, the Democratic party has been the closest ally of the African American community.
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
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #143 on: April 28, 2004, 12:58:30 AM »

More republicans voted for desegregation than Democrats.

Making someone dependednt on the gov't or make him think he needs quotas as he is not good enough to be hired on merit alone, does not make one a friend of the black man.

And I would bring up at this point the new deal system, particularly welfare, which has enslaved black people (and many other minorities) to practical fiscal slavery.  They have robbed these people of their dignity.  Who proposed and has pushed these programs? Democrats.

Now I am not a republican.  I am a registered member of the Constituion Party and a rock solid paleo-conservative.  However I will point out that it is the historical republican party, the tradition to which I belong, which has been the friend of hte minorities through offering them a handup, nto a handout.  The liberal and democrat programs have simply not been beneficial to members of any minority, including blacks.  If someone offered to shake your hand and put an explosive in your hand instead of shaking it, he would not be a friend.

Joe Zollars
« Last Edit: April 28, 2004, 01:00:13 AM by JoeZollars » Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #144 on: April 28, 2004, 01:25:58 AM »

Quote
Making someone dependednt on the gov't or make him think he needs quotas as he is not good enough to be hired on merit alone, does not make one a friend of the black man.

The vast majority of African Americans believe affirmative action is a good thing. You don't think so, I understand why, but you don't speak for the African American community. You might not think it is a good thing for the African Americans but the vast majority of African Americans think so, thus making the Demoractic Party their friend.

Quote
And I would bring up at this point the new deal system, particularly welfare, which has enslaved black people (and many other minorities) to practical fiscal slavery.  They have robbed these people of their dignity.  Who proposed and has pushed these programs? Democrats.

Once again your opinion differs geatly from the vast majority of African Americans, and those Organizations established to protect and defend the rights of African American citizens.

Quote
Now I am not a republican.  I am a registered member of the Constituion Party and a rock solid paleo-conservative.


 Lips Sealed

 
Quote
which has been the friend of hte minorities through offering them a handup, nto a handout
.

Typical rhetoric. I won't say any more....*remmeber Ben....if you can't say anything nice...don't say anything at all.*

Quote
The liberal and democrat programs have simply not been beneficial to members of any minority, including blacks.  


I know very few African Americans and Mexican Americans who would agree with you on that one.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2004, 01:27:25 AM 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
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #145 on: April 28, 2004, 01:36:25 AM »

There have been many who are and have been brainwashed by teh public education system and the mainstream media.  This is a fact.  However, where is the media coverage of people like H.K Edgerton, a black man and former president of the North Carolina NAACP recently marched across Dixie carying the third national flag of the confederacy and wearing the Dixie Gray uniform.  He was supported by tens of thousands of Black people.  And that is just one example.

Now I will say one thing more.  If you have assosciation with someone who has your least best interest at heart, than he is no friend.

This is probably all we should discuss such matters here as it is not apropriate.  My original point is that RB's slam against the thousands of actual black republicans (and there are tens of thousands more who are not so much in the public eye) was also inapropriate.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #146 on: April 28, 2004, 08:29:53 AM »

the Trinity doesn't make any sense . . . .

That pretty much sums up the difference between Orthodox and heterodox approaches.  Orthodox tradition would never consent to that proposition.  The Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople did not pretend that they were exhausting the uncontainable mystery of the Trinity, but they certainly did not think that the formulae they expressed were senseless, or that the "Trinity doesn't make any sense."

And frankly, what a rediculously facile way to dismiss the Fathers' subtle, and persuasive, reasoning.  Is that the best you can do?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2004, 08:30:44 AM by ambrosemzv » Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #147 on: April 28, 2004, 11:08:20 AM »

I think that to an extent we must admitt that the Trinity doesn't make sense. This doesn't mean we have no idea what it is or that its too difficult to believe, but we must take a humble approach, admitting what we know about the Trinity is from divine revelation, and that there is a lot we, as pathetic sinners, don't understand, and couldn't even comprehend.
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
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,472


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #148 on: April 28, 2004, 11:21:42 AM »

Quote
And frankly, what a rediculously facile way to dismiss the Fathers' subtle, and persuasive, reasoning.  Is that the best you can do?

I'm actually inclined to agree with Ben.  The Trinity doesn't make sense to our human minds.  I'm sure it makes perfect sense to God, and that's all I need to do.  That's the foundation of faith, that even though I can't understand what's going on, I know God does and He'll reveal it to me in due time.  Do you honestly think the Fathers had such a firm grasp on the Trinity that it made total and utter sense to them?  One of the hallmarks of the Christian East is its emphasis on mystery.  How much more mysterious can one get than trying to fathom three distinct persons sharing one essence?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #149 on: April 28, 2004, 11:22:20 AM »

Now come on folks.  Debating about whether or not the Trinity makes sense (actually it does as a great many religions throughout time have posited a "3 in 1" deity) is ridiculous.  How is this feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc.?

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #150 on: April 28, 2004, 02:20:41 PM »

[What I don't understand is why does orthodox church want the byzantine catholics gone?]

The way we Orthodox look at the issue of the Unia is such -

The original reason the Unia came into being was to deceive the Orthodox into becoming part of  the Roman Catholic Church.  Because at the time of its creation the RCC  looked at us as schismatics and heretics and belived that salvation was only obtainable through the RCC.

But now if they are sincere in what they claim - namely that -

The Orthodox Catholics are the 'other lung' of the same body
That both churches are 'sister' churches
That the Orthodox have valid Sacraments
That salvation can be obtained through the Orthodox Church
That the Orthodox and Uniates share the same faith

Then there no longer either an excuse or valid reason for the Unia to exist as a separate entity and they should be returned to their mother churches from whence they came where they can obtain the same salvation that have with their step mother.

It's as simple as that.

The problem is that the Unia has an identity crisis.  They don't want to be fully Orthodox Catholic but they don't want to be fully Roman Catholic either.

The fact that both the RCC and its sui juris appendage have a problem with the above shows the Orthodox just how empty these statements make are.

Orthodoc



The only reason why the "uniate" churches exist is because they want to be in communion with Rome.  If the Orthodox Church would reunite with the Catholic Church than there would be no need for "uniate" churches.
Logged

NULL
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 #151 on: April 28, 2004, 02:24:23 PM »

[If the Orthodox Church would reunite with the Catholic Church than there would be no need for "uniate" churches.]

How does one reunite with something they never left?


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.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #152 on: April 28, 2004, 02:28:18 PM »

Argh....this is where I bang my head against my keyboard....

I honestly believe that if the dogmatic differences were all there was to solve, we'd still be just as seperated.

How do you think such dogmatic differences such as the Filioque, Papal Infallibilty, Purgatory, the Immaculate conception, etc. can be resolved by a council? I really don't see how!

The Orthodox Church teaches iteself to be the true Church and rejects all of these Roman Catholic dogmas as Papal innovations. The Catholic Church teaches iteself to be the true Church, and believes these dogmas to be totally infallible and nessicary for salvation. Now how in heck are you going to reconcile the two, unless one side joins the other, ex. the Catholic Church rejects the Filioque, Papal Infallibilty, the Immaculate Conception, etc, and joins the Orthodox Church.

I am trying, trying very hard to see how Orthodoxy and Catholicism could ever be united without one side, or even both sides, making serious dogmatic compromises, which would be impossible, unless the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church stops professing itself to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.


I'm sorry if I upset you, but the truth of the matter is that the dogmas arose in concrete historical circumstances, and the language of those dogmas arose in concrete linguistic and cultural situations.  It is quite possible that the differences aren't all they're cracked up to be.  Finding out will require study, prayer, and openess to the Holy Spirit.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #153 on: April 28, 2004, 02:48:00 PM »

1) An Ecumenical Council of the undivided Church stated that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Father and the Son. The West began to use the filioque and by the 11th century condemned the East for not using it. This is a big deal because the Western Church, or the Roman Church, was changing something that was declared by an Ecumenical council, without the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

2) But beyond this there are theological problems with the filioque, that  have already been stated in this thread.

3) Yes, the Trinity doesn't make sense, and we don't understand everything, but if you examine how the early Church and how the Church fathers explained the Trinity, the Filioque makes little, to no sense.

Now I am not saying the 3 things above make the Filioque totally false, just questionable, and something to really think about.

As far as I know, none of the seven ecumenical councils said that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son.

To me, the filioque makes sense because, as we all agree, he proceeds from the Father, and Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise." (John 5:19)  He did not make the Spirit proceeding from the Father an exception to this.

I raise this because you have made the point that both sides can't be right.  Here is an example of where they could be.  The Spirit proceeds from the Father in an ultimate sense, from the Son in a derivative sense.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #154 on: April 28, 2004, 03:02:58 PM »

That pretty much sums up the difference between Orthodox and heterodox approaches.  Orthodox tradition would never consent to that proposition.  The Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople did not pretend that they were exhausting the uncontainable mystery of the Trinity, but they certainly did not think that the formulae they expressed were senseless, or that the "Trinity doesn't make any sense."

And frankly, what a rediculously facile way to dismiss the Fathers' subtle, and persuasive, reasoning.  Is that the best you can do?

Well, I was using something in the nature of a figure of speech I suppose.  I didn't mean that the formulae were senseless.  I meant that the Trinity was beyond our comprehension.  Also, I wasn't trying to dismiss anyone's reasoning.  My point is that there is no justification for refusing to have communion with the western churches on the basis of such subtleties.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #155 on: April 28, 2004, 04:37:48 PM »

Jaroslav Pelikan, in his volume on the history of the Eastern Church, does a great job of explaining the reasoning behind the general consensus among the Eastern Fathers that the filioque should be repudiated.  That reasoning is really quite interesting, and I find it persuasive.

To risk putting it in the form of a crude syllogism:  The Holy Spirit must proceed either from the Essence (Ousia) of God, which is shared in by the three Persons (Hypostases) of the Godhead, or from one of the Persons of the Godhead.  

That which is shared among the Persons is of the Essence, and must be shared in by all three Persons, not merely by two of the three.  Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then He must proceed from the Divine Essence (from the Ousia of God).  In that case, if one speaks of this in terms of the Persons of God, He must proceed from each of them equally, including from the Holy Spirit Himself.  But, that is absurd; the Holy Spirit obviously cannot be said to proceed from Himself.

Therefore, the Divine cause of the Holy Spirit's procession is found, not in God's Essence, but is personal/hypostatic.  In other words, the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession must be a Person of the Godhead, not God's interpersonal Essence.  And the Scriptural witness and Tradition make it clear that, among the Persons, it is the Father from Whom the Holy Spirit most clearly proceeds.  To suggest otherwise would be to attack the monarchy of the Father within the Holy Trinity.

The Eastern Fathers who wrote against the filioque argued that those scriptural passages such as that in which Jesus breathes on the apostles must be read as as symbolic references to Jesus' identity with the Father (not, of course, a literal, hypostatic identity, but an identity stemming from Jesus' absolute conformity to His Father's will), but not as "procession" in the same sense in which the Conciliar Fathers spoke in the Creed in affirming that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father."

Succinctly put, the filioque is inconsistant with Trinitarian theology.  According to Pelikan, the fine points of that theology were not fully grasped by Western theologians, who were less adept at, or familiar with, philosophical reasoning than were their Byzantine counterparts.

On the other hand, I'll take the bait.  This argument assumes, but does not prove, that if something pertains to a Person of the Trinity (as opposed to the Essence), it cannot pertain to one or both of the other Persons.  From your post, I see nothing that compels me to adopt that assumption.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #156 on: April 28, 2004, 07:47:17 PM »


The Spirit proceeds from the Father in an ultimate sense, from the Son in a derivative sense.

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one[/i]."

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

I am sorry but I do not see how the above official statements on the Catholic belief in the Filioque mirrors your "the Spirit proceeds from the Father in an ultimate sense, from the Son in a derivative sense". Perhaps I am missing something, but please help me out here, isn't your stance on the Filioque just some watered down version of the true Catholic dogma?

I'm not trying to be mean or question your faith, but I see a profound difference between the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, as one source, and the Spirit proceeding ultimately from the Father, but also from the Son, however only in a derivative sense.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2004, 07:50:36 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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #157 on: April 29, 2004, 03:28:29 AM »

All of this 'splaining about 'formulae for procession' and why the filioque is OK belies one key point:
Why did the Church of Rome feel it appropriate to alter, unilaterally, the Second Ecumenical Council (381) of the Catholic Church? (Please, no Spanish history; we're well beyond that.)
We Easterns have hit the Oriental Orthodox pretty hard over the Fourth Council and are supposed to overlook and/or accept the west's monkeying around with the Second Council? ALL arguments I see 'for' the filioque are just rationalizations and attempts to make reasons for what cannot be excused. They seem attempts at explaining in an attempt to NOT have to admit it is wrong.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Shiloah
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb.11:1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


www.balamand.edu.lb/ th...JoTheklaCan.htm


WWW
« Reply #158 on: April 29, 2004, 08:00:14 AM »

Jaroslav Pelikan, in his volume on the history of the Eastern Church, does a great job of explaining the reasoning behind the general consensus among the Eastern Fathers that the filioque should be repudiated.  That reasoning is really quite interesting, and I find it persuasive.

To risk putting it in the form of a crude syllogism:  The Holy Spirit must proceed either from the Essence (Ousia) of God, which is shared in by the three Persons (Hypostases) of the Godhead, or from one of the Persons of the Godhead.  

That which is shared among the Persons is of the Essence, and must be shared in by all three Persons, not merely by two of the three.  Therefore, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, then He must proceed from the Divine Essence (from the Ousia of God).  In that case, if one speaks of this in terms of the Persons of God, He must proceed from each of them equally, including from the Holy Spirit Himself.  But, that is absurd; the Holy Spirit obviously cannot be said to proceed from Himself.

Therefore, the Divine cause of the Holy Spirit's procession is found, not in God's Essence, but is personal/hypostatic.  In other words, the cause of the Holy Spirit's procession must be a Person of the Godhead, not God's interpersonal Essence.  And the Scriptural witness and Tradition make it clear that, among the Persons, it is the Father from Whom the Holy Spirit most clearly proceeds.  To suggest otherwise would be to attack the monarchy of the Father within the Holy Trinity.

The Eastern Fathers who wrote against the filioque argued that those scriptural passages such as that in which Jesus breathes on the apostles must be read as as symbolic references to Jesus' identity with the Father (not, of course, a literal, hypostatic identity, but an identity stemming from Jesus' absolute conformity to His Father's will), but not as "procession" in the same sense in which the Conciliar Fathers spoke in the Creed in affirming that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father."

Succinctly put, the filioque is inconsistant with Trinitarian theology.  According to Pelikan, the fine points of that theology were not fully grasped by Western theologians, who were less adept at, or familiar with, philosophical reasoning than were their Byzantine counterparts.

IMHO this is a very good approach. Jesus says in John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." This is perfectly congruent with the Schema of Dt.6:4 "Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord". Considering the fact that Jesus and the Father are one, Jesus could breath on the Apostles and impart the Holy Spirit.  Considering the "Oneness" of God, it helps to look at Gen.1:1-3 to see how the Three-in-One or triune presence of the Godhead, expressed in the name "Elohim", cannot be divided and has to be perceived as One complete and undivisible entity. The Nicene creed calls The Son Light of Light, and they certainly are of the same substance and are indivisible, meaning One cannot be existent nor imagined without the other. The same goes for the Holy Spirit.  
I think it is a vain attempt of the human mind to try to separate what cannot be separated. If the Father is God and the Son is God also, is one of them a lesser God? Or are they two Gods? No, Jesus says that they are One. He also says that it is the Father Who draws someone to Jesus (John 6:44 "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.") That is a picture like when you see an apple laying on the table and your spirit intermediates between your will and your muscles and your arm reaches out to pick up that apple to bring it to your mouth.

Jesus Christ is the incarnation of Dt.6:4. A separation and schism about this would not be necessary, provided man is willing.  If anything is glorifying God, it is true. If it brings separation into the Body of Christ, it is false.

CHRIST IS RISEN! INDEED HE IS RISEN!

Shiloah, respectfully
Logged

"God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" 2.Cor.4:6

"One thing is education: that we learn how to love God. "
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #159 on: April 29, 2004, 08:17:01 AM »

Quote
Aristokles: We Easterns have hit the Oriental Orthodox pretty hard over the Fourth Council and are supposed to overlook and/or accept the west's monkeying around with the Second Council?

I agree that no one should monkey around with the Second Council (or any council), but have "we Easterns hit the 'Oriental Orthodox' pretty hard over the Fourth Council?"

The Fathers did, that's for sure.

But practically no one on this board does.

Roman Catholics who visit this board can hardly fart without being challenged, while the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" (a deceptive and incorrect term) are not generally challenged at all, but in fact are praised.

Fundamental dogma?

Giggle.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #160 on: April 29, 2004, 08:51:15 AM »


Roman Catholics who visit this board can hardly fart without being challenged, while the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" (a deceptive and incorrect term) are not generally challenged at all, but in fact are praised.


Linus7,

I don't read these boards that way.
I do see difficulty in the OO/EO dialogue on one, maybe two issues.
But with the Vaticanites, we have dozens of differences that get abbreviated to two (by whom? certainly not us) - papal power and filioque, as if those were are the ONLY issues. Not so.
If in fact the Roman side departed the Church at the Second Council (tantamount to what changing the Creed did, even if it took them until the 9Th century to admit their undersatnding was wrong), how is that less egregious than rejecting Chalcedon?

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #161 on: April 29, 2004, 08:57:48 AM »

[Mod]
Deleted double post and associated complaint Wink
[/Mod]
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #162 on: April 29, 2004, 09:42:42 AM »

[Mod]
Deleted double post and associated complaint Wink
[/Mod]


Guess that makes you "Johnnie on the spot" Prodomos  Cheesy

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #163 on: April 29, 2004, 10:03:30 AM »

Linus7,

I don't read these boards that way.
I do see difficulty in the OO/EO dialogue on one, maybe two issues.
But with the Vaticanites, we have dozens of differences that get abbreviated to two (by whom? certainly not us) - papal power and filioque, as if those were are the ONLY issues. Not so.
If in fact the Roman side departed the Church at the Second Council (tantamount to what changing the Creed did, even if it took them until the 9Th century to admit their undersatnding was wrong), how is that less egregious than rejecting Chalcedon?

Demetri

One or two issues?

Well, if one believes there are seven ecumenical councils, there are at least four major issues, not to mention the issue of Church authority.

If one believes there are nine ecumenical councils, that means there are at least six major issues, not to mention the issue of Church authority.

And those 4 - 6 major issues reflect much more fundamental disagreements.

There are differences between Orthodoxy and RCism to be sure; I was not downplaying those.

I was merely pointing out the disparity in the way the RCs are challenged here and the way the NCs are not.

When I last engaged the NCs in debate on their forum, I found myself standing virtually alone, assailed on all sides by personal attacks and treated like a pariah because I dared to rock the jolly ecumenical boat. As I recall, only ambrose offered any real assistance, and that at the very conclusion of the discussion.

On the other hand, if one begins a thread on this forum critical of RC teaching or practice, he is assured of plenty of Orthodox support and popularity.

The disparity is obvious and startling.

Quote
Aristokles: If in fact the Roman side departed the Church at the Second Council (tantamount to what changing the Creed did, even if it took them until the 9Th century to admit their undersatnding was wrong), how is that less egregious than rejecting Chalcedon?

Historically speaking, that is not an accurate portrayal of what happened. One cannot impose a 9th century event on the 4th century. The West did not depart from the Church at Nicea.

I do believe the filioque to be far less egregious than the rejection of Chalcedon, BTW.

And what about the rest of the councils?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #164 on: April 29, 2004, 10:26:55 AM »

It's because the OOs don't reject Chalcedon, in substance they agree with the underlying idea.  The Joint Dialogue addressed this, and Orthodox thinkers like Fr. John Romanides, who was a participant in the dialogue, agreed with this, which is good enough for me.  The Dialogue itself noted that there were other issues to discuss, namely the status of the remaining councils and such, but the issue of Chalcedon itself should not be the obstacle at this point.
Logged

B
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #165 on: April 29, 2004, 10:29:51 AM »

No, Linus7.
I find that disagreeing on the nature of the Trinity to be as fundamentally significant AS disagreeing on the nature of Christ.

I understand your anti-Oriental sentiments. But this thread is not about those except in my reference to the Orientals and the Vaticanites.
If you want to hijack this thread or redirect it, please feel free. But I'll not make Chalcedon War here, or at all.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #166 on: April 29, 2004, 10:40:47 AM »

No, Linus7.
I find that disagreeing on the nature of the Trinity to be as fundamentally significant AS disagreeing on the nature of Christ.

I understand your anti-Oriental sentiments. But this thread is not about those except in my reference to the Orientals and the Vaticanites.
If you want to hijack this thread or redirect it, please feel free. But I'll not make Chalcedon War here, or at all.

Demetri

Well, believing the conflict over the filioque constitutes a fundamental disagreement on the nature of the Trinity reflects a profound misunderstanding of what RCs actually teach on that subject, IMHO.

Properly understood, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the doctrine has patristic support.

My posts were not about hijacking this thread to make "Chalcedon War." They were about the disparity between the treatment of RCs and NCs here and were in fact prompted by your post regarding the 4th Council.

I think your comment about "Chalcedon War" sums up and supports what I have posted quite nicely, as a matter of fact.

« Last Edit: April 29, 2004, 10:45:01 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #167 on: April 29, 2004, 10:52:06 AM »

Linus7,
I am glad we can agree about Chalcedon even if we remain at odds over explaining away the filioque. And "explaining away" is exactly what I see. Applying phrases such as "properly understood' are identical in action to 'splaining away some OO/EO differences ("we're saying the same thing in different words" sort of argument).
It seems to say "We'll keep wording our understanding until we get it ot sound OK to you" - Doesn't work for me.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #168 on: April 29, 2004, 11:06:09 AM »

Linus7,
I am glad we can agree about Chalcedon even if we remain at odds over explaining away the filioque. And "explaining away" is exactly what I see. Applying phrases such as "properly understood' are identical in action to 'splaining away some OO/EO differences ("we're saying the same thing in different words" sort of argument).
It seems to say "We'll keep wording our understanding until we get it ot sound OK to you" - Doesn't work for me.

Demetri

I don't see the dispute over the filioque the same way you do, obviously.

However, if there is a similarity in the way some folks explain away RC-EO differences and the way some others explain away NC-EO differences, then why the EO reluctance to take on the latter differences with the same zeal that they take on the former?

Try starting a thread like this one in the NC forum.

Pretty soon you'll be all by yourself and very unpopular.

No, wait. You'd have some support from me.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #169 on: April 29, 2004, 11:42:58 AM »

[If the Orthodox Church would reunite with the Catholic Church than there would be no need for "uniate" churches.]

How does one reunite with something they never left?


Orthodoc

Well, if the Orthodox never left, then let's share the Lord's table together.

Actually, I know what you mean, but I'm trying to illustrate the futility of verbal shell games.  Allow me to rephrase so that the substance of what I was saying can be addressed.  If the Orthodox and Catholic Churches come together again, "uniatism" will become a moot issue.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #170 on: April 29, 2004, 12:09:24 PM »

The Catholic Church has taught and declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source:

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one[/i]."

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 "Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

I am sorry but I do not see how the above official statements on the Catholic belief in the Filioque mirrors your "the Spirit proceeds from the Father in an ultimate sense, from the Son in a derivative sense". Perhaps I am missing something, but please help me out here, isn't your stance on the Filioque just some watered down version of the true Catholic dogma?

I'm not trying to be mean or question your faith, but I see a profound difference between the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, as one source, and the Spirit proceeding ultimately from the Father, but also from the Son, however only in a derivative sense.

Section 248 of the Catechism says: "At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit.  By confessing the Spirit as he 'who proceeds from the Father,' it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.  The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).  It says this, 'legitimately and with good reason,' for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as 'the principle without principle,' is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.  This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identiy of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.'

I believe that the above is consistent both with what I have said, and the historical teachings of the Church.  I think that often, in the past, on both sides, doctrines were phrased as polemically as possible.  It is my fervent hope and prayer that all sides can get past that sort of posturing, and start talking to each other again, not looking for reasons to separate but for reasons to come together.
Logged

NULL
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 #171 on: April 29, 2004, 12:14:46 PM »

[If the Orthodox and Catholic Churches come together again, "uniatism" will become a moot issue.]

I  can almost (but not quite) agree with your rewording.  If the Orthodox Catholic and the Roman Catholic churches were to come together again there would no longer be a need for a Roman Catholic Unia. Providing a reunited Church  once again shared the 'same faith' as professed in the SAME doctrines and dogmas which identify that faith.   But IF is a small word with a big meaning.  

Unfortunately,  the current stance we Orthodox Catholics  keep hearing from the RCC and their Unia step chirldren is ...that everything that is no longer shared is either 'theologumenia' or different expressions of the same thing won't cut it.
 
I Corthinians 1:10 [Caps are mine]

Now I plead with you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,  THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND THE SAME JUDGEMENT.

Until the above commandment is once again fulfilled, that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will remain divided against itself.

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.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #172 on: April 29, 2004, 12:16:38 PM »

All of this 'splaining about 'formulae for procession' and why the filioque is OK belies one key point:
Why did the Church of Rome feel it appropriate to alter, unilaterally, the Second Ecumenical Council (381) of the Catholic Church? (Please, no Spanish history; we're well beyond that.)
We Easterns have hit the Oriental Orthodox pretty hard over the Fourth Council and are supposed to overlook and/or accept the west's monkeying around with the Second Council? ALL arguments I see 'for' the filioque are just rationalizations and attempts to make reasons for what cannot be excused. They seem attempts at explaining in an attempt to NOT have to admit it is wrong.

Demetri

I have no need to rationalize the substance of the filioque, because I don't think it's wrong.  That is a different question, of course, from whether the western churches should have added the filioque to the Creed.  I don't think they should have.  It was an act that showed profound disrespect for the eastern churches.  So I don't try to rationalize that either.

As far as hitting the oriental churches pretty hard and so forth, I think we need to stop hitting each other completely.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #173 on: April 29, 2004, 12:23:37 PM »

[If the Orthodox and Catholic Churches come together again, "uniatism" will become a moot issue.]

I  can almost (but not quite) agree with your rewording.  If the Orthodox Catholic and the Roman Catholic churches were to come together again there would no longer be a need for a Roman Catholic Unia. Providing a reunited Church  once again shared the 'same faith' as professed in the SAME doctrines and dogmas which identify that faith.   But IF is a small word with a big meaning.  

Unfortunately,  the current stance we Orthodox Catholics  keep hearing from the RCC and their Unia step chirldren is ...that everything that is no longer shared is either 'theologumenia' or different expressions of the same thing won't cut it.
 
I Corthinians 1:10 [Caps are mine]

Now I plead with you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,  THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND THE SAME JUDGEMENT.

Until the above commandment is once again fulfilled, that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will remain divided against itself.

Orthodoc








Well, you're right, I think.  But we have to agree on what we need to agree on.  Orthodox theologians don't all agree on each and every point, but they stay in communion.  And cultural and language differences cannot be lightly pushed aside as rationalizing: they exist.  So, yes, we should all speak with one voice, and there should be an ecumenical council to decide what that voice is going to say.
Logged

NULL
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 #174 on: April 29, 2004, 01:23:08 PM »

[So, yes, we should all speak with one voice, and there should be an ecumenical council to decide what that voice is going to say.]

YEP!  Ya got it right this time.  I agree!

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.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #175 on: April 29, 2004, 03:16:00 PM »

[So, yes, we should all speak with one voice, and there should be an ecumenical council to decide what that voice is going to say.]

YEP!  Ya got it right this time.  I agree!

Orthodoc

Fantastic!  Now what is needed is a lay movement to agitate for it, from both sides.
Logged

NULL
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,747



« Reply #176 on: April 29, 2004, 03:20:04 PM »

I see the relationship of the RC & the OC like the good old Hatfields & McCoys.  

I hope their issues were resolved.


Pokoj,
james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #177 on: April 29, 2004, 04:05:29 PM »

I see the relationship of the RC & the OC like the good old Hatfields & McCoys.  

I hope their issues were resolved.


Pokoj,
james

It has many of the same elements.  Only in this case it's more like the Hatfields vs. the Hatfields.
Logged

NULL
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #178 on: April 29, 2004, 04:35:26 PM »

Fantastic!  Now what is needed is a lay movement to agitate for it, from both sides.

Well on our side of the ledger, it will be hard unless the hierarchs believe that sufficicent progress has been made in the dialogue for a council to be held ... which is why the dialogue going on now is important.

On the Catholic side, I think the concept of another council would be met with quite a bit of trepidation from many in the current hierarchy, given what happened in the wake of the last council ... I think there is a fear there that a council might prove to be "ungovernable", in some ways from the perspective of the current hierarchy.

Brendan
Logged

B
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #179 on: April 29, 2004, 07:24:14 PM »

Jack.....

I see a difference between your stance on the Filioque and what the Roman Catholic Church has declared again and again at Church Councils and in Papal Bulls.

The dogma of the Filioque itself states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source. I think that this is not that same thing as from the Father, but through the Son, hence from the Father and the Son. I am sorry but you can't redefine dogmas or change them to suit the times, or the ecumenist movement. The Catholic Church has dogmaticaly declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source, period.

Your quote from the catechism shows how much the Catholic Church has changed over the past 40 years. But these changes and refroms both in the litrugy and Church teaching can never change what has already been declared a dogma by the Catholic Church.

As to an Ecumenical Council.....remember in Catholicism the Pope has the same power as an Ecumenical council, so in reality all Catholics would need is to hear from the Pope that we are united in faith, and what exactly that faith is.

But, as it has already been mentioned in this thread, I don't think an Ecumenical Council is in the near future for the Catholic Church. Vatican II was a mess, and to this day it's reforms, and those that followed the council, are still being worked out and argued over. It will be a long time before a Vatican III.
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
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #180 on: April 29, 2004, 09:48:38 PM »

Well on our side of the ledger, it will be hard unless the hierarchs believe that sufficicent progress has been made in the dialogue for a council to be held ... which is why the dialogue going on now is important.

On the Catholic side, I think the concept of another council would be met with quite a bit of trepidation from many in the current hierarchy, given what happened in the wake of the last council ... I think there is a fear there that a council might prove to be "ungovernable", in some ways from the perspective of the current hierarchy.

Brendan

Yes, it would be difficult to convince them to do it.  And those of us who are laypeople, like myself, would have to show proper deference.  But we shouldn't think that we have nothing to say to the bishops.  After all, the women who first went to the tomb were able to proclaim the resurrection to the Apostles.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #181 on: April 29, 2004, 10:05:25 PM »

Jack.....

I see a difference between your stance on the Filioque and what the Roman Catholic Church has declared again and again at Church Councils and in Papal Bulls.

The dogma of the Filioque itself states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source. I think that this is not that same thing as from the Father, but through the Son, hence from the Father and the Son. I am sorry but you can't redefine dogmas or change them to suit the times, or the ecumenist movement. The Catholic Church has dogmaticaly declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source, period.

Your quote from the catechism shows how much the Catholic Church has changed over the past 40 years. But these changes and refroms both in the litrugy and Church teaching can never change what has already been declared a dogma by the Catholic Church.

Quote
Well, now, Ben, I think the Catholic Church is the most authoritative source for what her doctrines mean.  I quoted the Catechism to you, and showed you that my position was not different from the Catholic Church.  For you to say that the Catechism is wrong about what the Catholic Church says because it disagrees with your understanding of what earlier councils said is really to insist on a strawman to argue against.

As to an Ecumenical Council.....remember in Catholicism the Pope has the same power as an Ecumenical council, so in reality all Catholics would need is to hear from the Pope that we are united in faith, and what exactly that faith is.

Quote
If that was really what the Catholic Church taught, then why would Councils be held at all?  It is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that the Pope must act in collegiality with all the bishops.

But, as it has already been mentioned in this thread, I don't think an Ecumenical Council is in the near future for the Catholic Church. Vatican II was a mess, and to this day it's reforms, and those that followed the council, are still being worked out and argued over. It will be a long time before a Vatican III.

The opposition, within the Catholic Church, to Vatican II is slight.  The Council was not a disaster, but clarified a great deal, and served as the impetus of many needed reforms.  It's true that many take this "spirit of Vatican II" thing a little far, but the Council was far from a disaster in my view.  An Ecumenical Council may be nearer than you think.  Pope John Paul II would probably be very eager for one.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #182 on: April 29, 2004, 10:20:23 PM »

The Catechism is not infallible, or is not considered to be so by the Catholic Church. However, the dogma of the Filioque, Church Councils, and papal bulls on the Filioque are. And they cleary state the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

The modern Catechism, I believe it was first published in 1994, presents a watered down version of the Filioque. But you have to look beyond the modern Catechism, at the Church councils and Popes that dealt with this issue.

I do not see how there is room for interpretation, the dogma of the Filioque states simply and clearly: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as ONE source. Thats the end of it. This is Roman Catholic dogma, therefore official Church teaching, and is regarded as nessicary for slavation, as all dogmas are. To reject any of this is to simply reject the Catholic Church's claim to be the true Church.

I don't want East and West to be divided, but the fact remains that there are fudamental dogmatic difference between east and west, and the Filioque is one of these many. It can't be watered down, it can't be shoved off to the side for the sake of unity. The Catholic Church has always taught, and it is a fundamental article of the Catholic faith, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

It is interesting that Catholics are so willing to water down the Filioque or even shove it off to the side, yet the Orthodox have remained firm in their position on the issue for hundreds of years.

In regards to an Ecumenical Council, it is a basic fact that in Catholicism, the Pope does not need to call a Council to declare a dogma. Yes, the Pope must act in collegiality with the Church's bishops, but doesn't have to. For example Pope Pius XII delcared the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic faith with no council, no bishops, just him speaking ex cathedra.

As far as Vatican II, I think it was a disaster. So few are truly aware of how many Traditional Catholics are out there these days. SSPX, FSSP, CMRI, SSPV, etc. have grown rapidly over the past years, with a large youth movement. The majority of Traditional Catholic parishes I have been to were filled with people in their 20's and 30's, with a few older ones in their 60's and 70's. The reforms of Vatican II and the Post-Vatican II era have rocked the Church, I have never met anyone who denies this.
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
Edwin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


Place Personal Text Here


« Reply #183 on: April 29, 2004, 10:25:13 PM »

:Yes, the Pope must act in collegiality with the Church's bishops, but doesn't have to.:

That seems to be a self-contradictory statement. If he "must" do something then surely he "has to." How are you distinguishing between the two?

Edwin
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #184 on: April 29, 2004, 10:34:19 PM »

Well what I meant is that is should be that way, and is that way for the most part. But because of the Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibilty the Pope can declare dogmas without a Church Council. The Pope can speak ex cathedra, and needs no help from the bishops in declaring the dogma.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2004, 10:46:56 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
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #185 on: April 30, 2004, 02:39:54 PM »

Well what I meant is that is should be that way, and is that way for the most part. But because of the Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibilty the Pope can declare dogmas without a Church Council. The Pope can speak ex cathedra, and needs no help from the bishops in declaring the dogma.

Actually, Ben, it is not necessarily the case that the Pope can speak ex cathedra needing no help from the bishops.  In fact, there is good reason to doubt that it is the case.  When the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were declared dogmas of the Church, the bishops were indeed consulted.  True, there was no ecumenical council as such, but the question is the need for collegiality.  An ecumenical council is one way of expressing that collegiality, but it need not always take that form.

With respect I submit that you are confusing the consent and collegiality issues.  The infallibility that inheres in the Chair of Peter is a gift from God, and does not require the consent of the rest of the bishops to exist.  The circumstances under which that infallibility is present is an entirely different question.
Logged

NULL
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #186 on: April 30, 2004, 03:41:51 PM »

The Catechism is not infallible, or is not considered to be so by the Catholic Church. However, the dogma of the Filioque, Church Councils, and papal bulls on the Filioque are. And they cleary state the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

The modern Catechism, I believe it was first published in 1994, presents a watered down version of the Filioque. But you have to look beyond the modern Catechism, at the Church councils and Popes that dealt with this issue.

I do not see how there is room for interpretation, the dogma of the Filioque states simply and clearly: The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as ONE source. Thats the end of it. This is Roman Catholic dogma, therefore official Church teaching, and is regarded as nessicary for slavation, as all dogmas are. To reject any of this is to simply reject the Catholic Church's claim to be the true Church.

I don't want East and West to be divided, but the fact remains that there are fudamental dogmatic difference between east and west, and the Filioque is one of these many. It can't be watered down, it can't be shoved off to the side for the sake of unity. The Catholic Church has always taught, and it is a fundamental article of the Catholic faith, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

It is interesting that Catholics are so willing to water down the Filioque or even shove it off to the side, yet the Orthodox have remained firm in their position on the issue for hundreds of years.

In regards to an Ecumenical Council, it is a basic fact that in Catholicism, the Pope does not need to call a Council to declare a dogma. Yes, the Pope must act in collegiality with the Church's bishops, but doesn't have to. For example Pope Pius XII delcared the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic faith with no council, no bishops, just him speaking ex cathedra.

As far as Vatican II, I think it was a disaster. So few are truly aware of how many Traditional Catholics are out there these days. SSPX, FSSP, CMRI, SSPV, etc. have grown rapidly over the past years, with a large youth movement. The majority of Traditional Catholic parishes I have been to were filled with people in their 20's and 30's, with a few older ones in their 60's and 70's. The reforms of Vatican II and the Post-Vatican II era have rocked the Church, I have never met anyone who denies this.

The Catechism has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II as "a sure norm" for teaching the faith.  He, at least, does not think that the Catechism waters down the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source simply means that there are not two processions.  There is nothing about that doctrine that, in logic, forecloses a procession from the Son in a derivative sense, i.e., whatever the Son sees the Father doing, he does likewise.  The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son because he proceeds from the Father, and not the other way around; but it is one procession, not two, because the Holy Spirit is one Person of the Trinity.  

As for Vatican II, it's hard for me to consider a valid Church council as a disaster.  There are those, to be sure, who disagree with it, or what they think it says (e.g. there's not a peep about mass in the vernacular in the documents), but that in itself doesn't make it a disaster.  There continued to be Arians after the Council of Nicea.

Ben, I don't advocate watering down anything for the sake of mere organizational unity.  What I do advocate is a little less "my way or the highway," and a lot more love and acceptance of our brothers and sisters in Christ.  Even St. Paul, who forcefully advocated the freedom of Gentile Christians from the ritual requirements of the Law tolerated those Jewish Christians who wanted to continue following those requirements. (Romans 14:1--15:13)  But "while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving like ordinary men?  For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' and another, 'I belong to Apollos,' are you not merely men?" (I Corinthians 3:3-4)  So rather than everyone insisting on their own way, "let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." (Romans 14:13)  I would rather omit the filioque from the Creed than put a stumbling block in front of an Orthodox brother.  Yes, that looks like compromise to the world, and people might even conclude that I had lost the argument.  But that is worldly thinking rather than the way of the Gospel.  I propose that we try to outdo each other in accommodating our brothers.  We have not been called to win arguments, but to service.
Logged

NULL
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #187 on: April 30, 2004, 10:32:38 PM »


Quote
The Catechism has been endorsed by Pope John Paul II as "a sure norm" for teaching the faith.  He, at least, does not think that the Catechism waters down the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I do not know for certain if the Holy Father thinks the modern catechism waters down the faith or not, he probably doesn't. However, the Pope didn't see a problem in kissing the Qu'ran, having the the sacred Tilac put on his forehead by a priestess of Shiva in Bombay, or taking part in Animist rites in the “Sacred Forest” in Togo.

I am not saying that John Paul II is a heretic or that he is a bad Pope, but one can not ignore is bad judgement at times.

Look I don't think the new Catechism isn't Catholic but no one can deny that it wates down Catholic dogma. Compare the new Catechism with the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Trent, and you will see how differently the Filioque, Papal Infallibilty, and the Immaculate Conception are presented. If you believe this is so because each age is taught the truth in a different way, then I guess this age/generation likes the lite version of the truth, which doesn't surprise me.  

Quote
As for Vatican II, it's hard for me to consider a valid Church council as a disaster.  There are those, to be sure, who disagree with it, or what they think it says (e.g. there's not a peep about mass in the vernacular in the documents), but that in itself doesn't make it a disaster.  There continued to be Arians after the Council of Nicea.

Vatican II in itself was not a very liberal council, its the way the reforms were put into place, and those reforms that were carried out "in the spirit of Vatican II", such as the invention of a new liturgy, that were very liberal and, in many ways, a departure from Catholic teaching.

As to reference to Arians after the Council of Nicea...I have no idea what you are talking about. Vatican II was a pastoral council, it dealt with no heresy.

Quote
Ben, I don't advocate watering down anything for the sake of mere organizational unity.


Then what do you call "I  would rather omit the filioque from the Creed than put a stumbling block" ?!

Quote
"my way or the highway,"


This is Catholic teachings! Read the infallible Papal Bulls Unam Sanctam and Cantante Domino. The Catholic Church has always taught it is the true Church and all else is schism and heresy, period. A Church that claims to be, beyond a doubt, the true Church of Jesus Christ can not compromise, for to do so would be compromising the true faith.

Quote
I would rather omit the filioque from the Creed than put a stumbling block in front of an Orthodox brother.
 

So, for the sake of unity you are willing to deny Catholic dogmas, or would accept the Catholic Church shoving to the side what has been declared a dogma of the Catholic Church? And may I ask how would this happen, without the Catholic Church admitting it is not the true Church?

This is what angers me, Catholics so willing to give up fundamental dogmas and Church teaching for the sake of unity. It is truly sad.

Quote
But that is worldly thinking rather than the way of the Gospel.


The way of the Gospel is not to turn your back on Christ and deny the truth for the sake of unity. And since you are a Catholic you must believe the Filioque to be the truth, or you are a heretic, according to the definition of a heretic in the new Catechism.
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
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #188 on: May 01, 2004, 02:25:21 PM »

I do not know for certain if the Holy Father thinks the modern catechism waters down the faith or not, he probably doesn't. However, the Pope didn't see a problem in kissing the Qu'ran, having the the sacred Tilac put on his forehead by a priestess of Shiva in Bombay, or taking part in Animist rites in the “Sacred Forest” in Togo.

I am not saying that John Paul II is a heretic or that he is a bad Pope, but one can not ignore is bad judgement at times.

Look I don't think the new Catechism isn't Catholic but no one can deny that it wates down Catholic dogma. Compare the new Catechism with the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Trent, and you will see how differently the Filioque, Papal Infallibilty, and the Immaculate Conception are presented. If you believe this is so because each age is taught the truth in a different way, then I guess this age/generation likes the lite version of the truth, which doesn't surprise me.  Vatican II in itself was not a very liberal council, its the way the reforms were put into place, and those reforms that were carried out "in the spirit of Vatican II", such as the invention of a new liturgy, that were very liberal and, in many ways, a departure from Catholic teaching.

As to reference to Arians after the Council of Nicea...I have no idea what you are talking about. Vatican II was a pastoral council, it dealt with no heresy.

Then what do you call "I  would rather omit the filioque from the Creed than put a stumbling block" ?!

This is Catholic teachings! Read the infallible Papal Bulls Unam Sanctam and Cantante Domino. The Catholic Church has always taught it is the true Church and all else is schism and heresy, period. A Church that claims to be, beyond a doubt, the true Church of Jesus Christ can not compromise, for to do so would be compromising the true faith.  

So, for the sake of unity you are willing to deny Catholic dogmas, or would accept the Catholic Church shoving to the side what has been declared a dogma of the Catholic Church? And may I ask how would this happen, without the Catholic Church admitting it is not the true Church?

This is what angers me, Catholics so willing to give up fundamental dogmas and Church teaching for the sake of unity. It is truly sad.

The way of the Gospel is not to turn your back on Christ and deny the truth for the sake of unity. And since you are a Catholic you must believe the Filioque to be the truth, or you are a heretic, according to the definition of a heretic in the new Catechism.

I wish I could figure out how to separate the quotes like you do.  It would probably be easier to follow my points.  Maybe Anastasios will give me a lesson.  Anyway...

Stipulated that the Pope probably shouldn't kiss the Koran or engage in like activity.  He shouldn't counsel the burning of heretics either, but an earlier Pope did that.  As you know, Popes are human.  Of course, I'm human too, and could be wrong.  I don't know how old you are.  From their pictures the moderators look pretty young, and I think most people who engage in online forums are younger than me (that doesn't make me smarter, just slower to respond).  As for me, I'm pushing fifty, and have had multiple experiences of changing my mind after being convinced that I am right.  As I add to my treasury of galactically stupid acts, I become more and more diffident about criticizing others.  In any event, I'm sure the Pope does better at his job than I would.  Indeed, I wouldn't want the job.  Just being responsible for how I impart religion to my family is plenty for me.  I also teach for the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, and that's scarier than skydiving when I think about it, and I've done both.  All I can do is ask God to take over, and keep me from teaching any error.

I do deny that the Catechism waters down the faith.  In it there are extensive quotes from and cites to scripture, councils, and Church Fathers.  There is a companion volume to the Catechism put out by Ignatius Press that contains the relevant portions of the works cited and quoted.  I don't know how useful it would be to a theology student, but for those of us who are laypeople in secular jobs it is a real handy volume.

I'm not a proponent of Christianity Lite, but I do not equate the strictest interpretation of something with the truth of the matter.  In the early Church those who taught that converts should be circumcised could certainly claim to be stricter than St. Paul.  Indeed, they could point to historical practice to support their view.  But that didn't make them right.

My comment about the Arians was to make the point that simply because there are those who disagree with Vatican II doesn't mean that the council was wrong, or a disaster.  It just means that it was a disappointment to those who would have voted the other way on the issues that came before the council.

I agree with the filioque.  I don't understand how someone can read the Bible and not acknowledge its truth.  As I have pointed out, it does not mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in an ultimate sense, but the Orthodox seem to think that it sounds that way.  And, actually, to be honest, it does sound that way.  And if anybody thinks that because of the Creed, then they are wrong, I think.  To say that the Church holds the truth doesn't mean that she always expresses it in the clearest manner possible.  So I have no objection to rephrasing it, or even omitting it entirely until the differences can be sorted out.  The Creed doesn't have to enunciate all truth.  It says nothing about the Assumption of Mary, for example.  And yes, if it offends my Orthodox brothers, I'm willing to take it out.  That is because the Orthodox Churches are apostolic, true Churches.  I wouldn't be willing to do something like that for the Peace and Freedom Party.  

Yes, Brother Ben, unity is that important to me.  I'm willing to look weak and foolish in order to make it happen.  I don't see this as turning my back on the Gospel, because the unity of all Apostolic Churches is part of the Gospel.  The western, eastern, and oriental Churches all need each other to fully accomplish their mission.  Unity will be best achieved when we stop thinking how the other side can come up to our standards, and start thinking about how we can serve the other side.

It's just like marriage.  Anyone who thinks of marriage as a contract where they have the right to expect something from the other is doomed to disappointment.  The happy marriages are those where each partner thinks about how he or she can serve the other, and leaves the service of self to the other.  Of course, there's risk involved; it takes faith.  That's why marriage is a sacrament.  

Now we Catholics say that we have maintained unity with the Apostolic See, the Chair of Peter, the rock on which the Church is built.  Now if this is true, and I am convinced that it is, then the cause of unity is especially the mission of the Pope.  It follows that in this matter he, as in other things, must fulfill the role of Servant of the Servants of God.  Therefore, Christians in communion with him must share in that ministry, and also be servants for the cause of unity.
Logged

NULL
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #189 on: May 01, 2004, 02:47:03 PM »

I am not saying that John Paul II is a heretic or that he is a bad Pope, but one can not ignore is bad judgement at times.

Well, he cetainly IS a schismatic.  Wink
Logged
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #190 on: May 01, 2004, 04:39:22 PM »

Quote
I agree with the filioque.  I don't understand how someone can read the Bible and not acknowledge its truth.


Then why are you so willing to omitt it for the sake of unity? If you believe it to be biblical truth then I am shocked that you would so willing give it up. One should never compormise the truth, and yet you believe compormising the truth is fine and dandy. I am sorry, but it would only make sense that a Christian would do everythng in their power to defend the truth, yet you are willing to omitt the truth, so that the truth will no longer be a stumbling block for unity. I am sorry, but this amazes me. How far will you go? How many Catholic dogmas will you omitt for the sake of unity?

Quote
As I have pointed out, it does not mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in an ultimate sense, but the Orthodox seem to think that it sounds that way.


The dogma of the Filioque and numerous Council declarations and Papal Bulls state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source. I do not see how you can get "the Spirit proceeds from the Father ultimately, and from the Son, but only as if through the Son" out of the dogma of the Filioque.

Quote
That is because the Orthodox Churches are apostolic, true Churches.
 

The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church to be apostolic and have valid orders, however in schism from the true Church. Therefore the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church is not the true Church, rather in schism from the true Church. So I have no idea what you mean by "true Churches"

Honestly, we are getting no where, you don't believe the Filioque means that the Sprit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as on source, I do. You believe it can be omitted for unity's sake, I don't. You believe truth can be shoved off to the side, so it won't get in the way of unity, I don't.

We aren't going to get anywhere, so I will pray for you, and wish the best for you, and your family!
« Last Edit: May 01, 2004, 04:42:09 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
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #191 on: May 02, 2004, 06:44:00 PM »



Then why are you so willing to omitt it for the sake of unity? If you believe it to be biblical truth then I am shocked that you would so willing give it up. One should never compormise the truth, and yet you believe compormising the truth is fine and dandy. I am sorry, but it would only make sense that a Christian would do everythng in their power to defend the truth, yet you are willing to omitt the truth, so that the truth will no longer be a stumbling block for unity. I am sorry, but this amazes me. How far will you go? How many Catholic dogmas will you omitt for the sake of unity?

The dogma of the Filioque and numerous Council declarations and Papal Bulls state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source. I do not see how you can get "the Spirit proceeds from the Father ultimately, and from the Son, but only as if through the Son" out of the dogma of the Filioque.  

The Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church to be apostolic and have valid orders, however in schism from the true Church. Therefore the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church is not the true Church, rather in schism from the true Church. So I have no idea what you mean by "true Churches"

Honestly, we are getting no where, you don't believe the Filioque means that the Sprit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as on source, I do. You believe it can be omitted for unity's sake, I don't. You believe truth can be shoved off to the side, so it won't get in the way of unity, I don't.

We aren't going to get anywhere, so I will pray for you, and wish the best for you, and your family!

That's okay, Ben.  

I do believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one source.  As I've said, that doesn't mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in an ultimate rather than a derivative sense.  The Spirit proceeds from the Son because he proceeds from the Father, not the other way around.

I have obviously failed to get my views across, and I'm sorry about that.  I'll summarize, then break off the discussion as you wish.  I'm of the firm belief that if the eastern, western, and oriental churches worked at it hard enough, they would find that they really disagree very little.  So I don't think that there would be any compromise of truth necessary.  And I certainly wouldn't propose that any side simply stay quiet about what it believes in.  

The problem is mistaking the symbol for the reality behind the symbol.  Words are symbols that point beyond themselves.  Often, as was apparently the case in this conversation, a person will say something and someone else will understand him in a way entirely different than what he meant.  This can happen very easily across language and cultural barriers.

That is why the scripture says that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.  If I have the best formulation of true doctrine that human language can devise, but have not love, I am nothing.  Love seeks unity more than agreement.  And on the last day we're going to be judged on the basis of our works.  The Samaritan who stops and helps the robbery victim is more of a neighbor than the priest and Levite who pass by on the other side of the road, in spite of the fact that the priest and the Levite have the truer doctrine.

Ben, I enjoy talking with you and other people who post on this site.  I always learn something.  And conversing with those who are more educated than I am theologically is always thought provoking and challenging.
Logged

NULL
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #192 on: May 13, 2004, 05:31:56 PM »

This argument assumes, but does not prove, that if something pertains to a Person of the Trinity (as opposed to the Essence), it cannot pertain to one or both of the other Persons.  From your post, I see nothing that compels me to adopt that assumption.

I'm not sure how the Fathers responded, or would have responded, to this.  But, I'll play the fool and venture a guess.

I suspect they might have pointed out that the relations among the Persons are not merely external attributes that "pertain" to the Persons (like two people might both happen to have the same barber, etc.), but are, in fact, constitutive of each Person.

The Personhood is defined by virtue of the Person's unique relations with another member of the Trinity.  The Father is uniquely the begetter of the Son (not of the Son and the Spirit); the Son is uniquely begotten of the Father (not of the Father and the Spirit); the Spirit is uniquely He who proceeds from the Father (not from the Father and the Son).

If the Father were begetter of both other Persons, then each separate relation of begetting would be, precisely, merely an attribute of the Persons to Whom it happened to pertain, and these Persons would be conceivable apart from that particular relation.  But, that is not so.

If the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son, then each separate relation of procession would be merely an attribute of the Persons to Whom it happened to pertain, those Persons being conceivable apart from that particular relation.  But, that is not so, either.

We should not allow ourselves to be confused by the analogy between human relations, and the relations within the Trinity.  Clarence is the father of Marvin and Michael.  But, those relations, dear as they are to him, are not constitutive of his very Personhood.  There was a time when Clarence was, but was not a father.  But 'tis not so with the First Person of the Trinity.

To put it another way, it is of the Father's very Personhood (not of the Triune God's Essence, as we showed earlier) that He is the One from Whom the Spirit Proceeds.  If the Son is also such a One, then the Procession of the Spirit is not of the very Personhood of either Father or Son.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2004, 05:45:08 PM by ambrosemzv » Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #193 on: May 13, 2004, 05:38:52 PM »

The Catholic Church has always taught, and it is a fundamental article of the Catholic faith, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

But Ben surely you do not believe that since there was a time when the filioque was not and indeed Roman Popes taught that it should not be used - witness the Creed minus the filioque written on tablets of silver.

The filioque can be understood and explained if its context is taken into account. And with a particular interpretation can find patristic support. But it is not the case that the filioque, especially as positing the ontological source of the Spirit in the Father and the Son, was always the teaching of the Church. if it were so then it would have been in the Creed at the beginning and would not have needed adding.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #194 on: May 15, 2004, 06:13:21 AM »


Quote
But Ben surely you do not believe that since there was a time when the filioque was not and indeed Roman Popes taught that it should not be used - witness the Creed minus the filioque written on tablets of silver.

The Filioque showed up in Spain in the 6th century, and was used in many areas with Romes's permission. However, it was not until the 11th century that Rome itself began to use the Filioque. But this does not mean Rome believed the Filioque should not be used. I challenge you to find a Papal Bull or encyclical from before Rome began to use the Filioque that states the Filioque shouldn't be used.

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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #195 on: May 15, 2004, 08:21:46 AM »

What about the Pontifical document published in 1995 which says:

"The Father alone is the principle without principle (ß+Ç-ü-çß+¦ ß+¦+++¦-ü-ç++-é) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (-Ç+++¦+«) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ß+É+¦ ++-î++++-Ã  -ä++ß+ª +á+¦-ä-ü-î-é) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner."

"The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (ß+Ç-ü-çß+¦, +¦ß+¦-ä+»+¦) of the ß+É+¦-Ç-î-ü+¦-à -â+¦-é of the Spirit."

and would you provide a comment on this passage from a site:

" At first, the Roman popes refused to recognized the Filioque. Thus, in the ninth century, Pope Leo III rejected the request of the Emperor Charlemagne to insert this addition into the Symbol of Faith. Moreover, the Bishop of Rome even ordered that the text of the Nicaeo-¡Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith be engraved on two silver tablets and that these tablets be set up at the tomb of the Apostles Peter and Paul with the inscription: "I, Leo, placed these tablets out of love for the Orthodox faith and to safeguard it".
 
Of course the filioque has not been rejected by present Popes, I am not suggesting that, but there seems to be a recognition that it is problematic and needs to be interpreted in the right way, NOT that the Son is the ontological origin of the Spirit at all.

YOU say:

"you don't believe the Filioque means that the Sprit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source"

But the document I have in front of me from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1995 says:

"The Father alone is the principle without principle (ß+Ç-ü-çß+¦ ß+¦+++¦-ü-ç++-é) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (-Ç+++¦+«) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

So I am confused why you have understood differently to the Pontifical Council?

Help?Huh

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #196 on: May 15, 2004, 12:49:32 PM »

Ben,

Quote
The Filioque showed up in Spain in the 6th century, and was used in many areas with Romes's permission. However, it was not until the 11th century that Rome itself began to use the Filioque. But this does not mean Rome believed the Filioque should not be used. I challenge you to find a Papal Bull or encyclical from before Rome began to use the Filioque that states the Filioque shouldn't be used.

The 8th Ecumenical Council (879-880) would be a good start.  It was regarded as Ecumenical by the Latins until the 11th century, when instead they chose (for obvious reasons) to regard the anti-Photian council (never accepted by the Christian east) of 869 as "ecumenical" instead (which is odd, since it is precisely this anti-council which the Synod of 879-880 was overturning, with Papal consent!).  Among the issues dealt with at the Synod of 879 were...

- affirmation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and it's condemnation of iconoclasm

- agreement by the various local Churches to not interefere in each others affairs (Rome forgot about this big time, and to lesser degrees, so have other local Churches, on and off...)

- most significantly, a declaration that the Nicean-Constantinopolean Symbol of Faith ("Nicene Creed") was never to be altered, added to, etc.

Though the RCC has long since backed away from this Synod, it's documents were agreed to and signed by the Roman Church.

Even earlier than all of this, Pope Leo III had unequivocally rejected the filioque heresy.  In a gesture pregnant with meaning in a climate where the Latin Church was increasingly at the mercy of it's pro-filioquist, Frankish lords (for them the filioque clause was a means of undermining the eastern Church, and more important for them, the East Roman Empire which was an obstical to Charlemagne's delusions of grandure - the Franks went to the point of accusing the East Romans of having removed the filoque clause from the Creed!), this Pope had two silve plates engraved.  One in Greek, the other in Latin, both containing the original creed, and posted prominantly on a wall in St.Peter's Basillica in Rome.

One reason why the Orthodox Latin Popes were perhaps not more vocal in their protest, and more strident in hurling anathemas and condemnations against those who were using or promoting the false version of the Creed, is because they did not enjoy the freedom that the East Romans had to do such.  The west was under the rule of Charlemange and his successors - men committed (for the above mentioned reasons, as well as their affectation for all things Augustinian...pretty much to the exclusion of anything else) to this innovation, and who had proven dangerous when crossed.

Seraphim
Logged

icxn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 251


« Reply #197 on: May 15, 2004, 03:13:09 PM »

Well what I meant is that is should be that way, and is that way for the most part. But because of the Roman Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibilty the Pope can declare dogmas without a Church Council. The Pope can speak ex cathedra, and needs no help from the bishops in declaring the dogma.

So Ben,

This begs the question... How did this dogma of Papal Infallibility came to be?

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

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #198 on: May 15, 2004, 03:30:43 PM »


Quote
What about the Pontifical document published in 1995 which says:

Firstly, a Pontifical document is not considered to be infallible by the Catholic Church. However, and Ecumenical Council is, and at times, as are Papal Bull. And numerous Catholic Ecumenical Councils and Papal Bulls have delcared the that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as on source.

Quote
"The Father alone is the principle without principle (ß+Ç-ü-çß+¦ ß+¦+++¦-ü-ç++-é) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (-Ç+++¦+«) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ß+É+¦ ++-î++++-Ã  -ä++ß+ª +á+¦-ä-ü-î-é) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner."

This is interesting, and many would consider this orthodox Catholic teaching. Many would say that the Filioque states that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the the Father and Son as one source, but this doesn't mean the Spirit doesn't have its origin in the Father.

Quote
"The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (ß+Ç-ü-çß+¦, +¦ß+¦-ä+»+¦) of the ß+É+¦-Ç-î-ü+¦-à -â+¦-é of the Spirit."

The Catholic Church does not deny the Monarchy of the Father, and as I said many would argue that the dogma of the Filioque doesn't mean that the Father isn't the sole origin of the Spirit.

Quote
" At first, the Roman popes refused to recognized the Filioque. Thus, in the ninth century, Pope Leo III rejected the request of the Emperor Charlemagne to insert this addition into the Symbol of Faith. Moreover, the Bishop of Rome even ordered that the text of the Nicaeo-¡Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith be engraved on two silver tablets and that these tablets be set up at the tomb of the Apostles Peter and Paul with the inscription: "I, Leo, placed these tablets out of love for the Orthodox faith and to safeguard it".


I do not believe that the Roman pope refused to recognize the Filioque. If this was true they would have condmened the Synod of Toledo (447), which added the filioque to oppose the Arian of Heresy.  Pope Leo I even used the formula to the members of that synod, responding to heresies they were confronting.

At the third synod of Toledo in 589, the ruling Visigoths, who had been Arian Christians, submitted to the Catholic Church and were obliged to accept the Nicene Creed with the filioque, and Rome did not obejct to this. If Rome has thought the filioque was a heresy and refused to accept the filioque, Rome would have condemned the third synod of Toledo.

As for Pope Leo III, he agreed to the filioque clause theologically, but was opposed to adopting it in worship in Rome, and insisted on using the Nicene Creed in Mass in Rome as it was expressed at the Council of Ephesus and all the Ecumenical Councils up until that time.
 
Quote
But the document I have in front of me from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1995 says:

A document that is nothing compared to the declartions of Catholic Ecumenical Councils and Papal Bulls.

I myself, as I explore Orthodox Christianity, have a lot questions regarding the Filioque. I am actually going to speak with my priest about it soon. I have much to learn, but I can tell you that Catholic Ecumenical Councils and Papal Bulls, have declared over and over again that the Holy Spirit porceeds from the Father and the Son, as one source.

In Christ,
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
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #199 on: May 15, 2004, 03:33:20 PM »

So Ben,

This begs the question... How did this dogma of Papal Infallibility came to be?

icxn

That would take years to study and come to understand. It is a process that started the day Christ walked the earth all the way up to the first Vatican Council.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #200 on: May 15, 2004, 03:36:56 PM »

Ben

How can the Pontifical Council issue documents that are contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine? Why has no-one been excommunicated?

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #201 on: May 15, 2004, 03:40:11 PM »

Ben

How can the Pontifical Council issue documents that are contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine? Why has no-one been excommunicated?

Peter

The Holy Father and the majority of the Church's bishops and cardinals do not feel it is contrary to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the filioque. As I have already said many will argue that the filioque doesn't mean that the Father isn't the origin of the Holy Ghost.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #202 on: May 15, 2004, 03:53:32 PM »

But what is the teaching of your church?

If it is that the Father and the Son are the source of the Spirit then surely it is deeply disturbing if the Pontifical Council issues an unrebuked statement saying that the Father alone is the source of the Spirit?

How can these two statements be reconciled in your view?

I would wish to have RC understanding of the matter rather than think I know what RC's mean.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #203 on: May 15, 2004, 04:14:30 PM »

Quote
But what is the teaching of your church?

The 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 makes it clear: "..we confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one; not by two spirations but by one."

The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

First Vatican Council, 1869-1870 Dogmatic Constitution on the Principal Mysteries of the Faith" states: "For from all eternity the Father generates the Son, not in producing by emanation another essence equal to his own, but in communicating his own simple essence. And in like manner, the Holy Spirit proceeds, not by a multiplication of the essence, but he proceeds by a communication of the same singular essence by one eternal spiration from the Father and the Son as from one principle."

The Roman Catechism (The offical Roman Catholic catechism, 1566-1994) I.8.6. states: With regard to the words immediately succeeding: "who proceeds from the Father and the Son," the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds, by eternal procession, from the Father and the Son as from one principle. This is a truth taught to us by the rule of the Church from which the least departure is unwarrantable on the part of Christians.

 
Quote
it is deeply disturbing if the Pontifical Council issues an unrebuked statement saying that the Father alone is the source of the Spirit?

In the Post Vat-II era Rome has isued many things that seem to be contrary to Catholic teaching, this is part of the reason that I am a traidtional Catholic. At a Traditional Catholic parish I am sure to get pure Catholic teaching, uncoulded by false ecumenism and modernism.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2004, 04:17:04 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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #204 on: May 15, 2004, 04:31:28 PM »

Hiya Ben

Thanks for that. How would RC's handle scripture such as:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

By what impetus does the RC support an addition to an unusually clear theological statement of our Lord Himself?

Honestly wondering.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #205 on: May 15, 2004, 04:45:39 PM »

Hiya Ben

Thanks for that. How would RC's handle scripture such as:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

By what impetus does the RC support an addition to an unusually clear theological statement of our Lord Himself?

Honestly wondering.


Considering the fact that I myself do not understand the filioque as well as I would like to, and the fact that I am struggling with the dogma of the filioque, I do not think that I am qualified to give you a correct answer, that represents the Catholic teaching 100%.

However, I will say that scripture calsl the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Son (Gal., iv, 6), the spirit of Christ (Rom., viii, 9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil., i, 19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matt., x, 20) and the Spirit of God (I Cor., ii, ll). They attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father. Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke, xxiv, 49; John, xv, 26; xvi, 7; xx, 22; Acts, ii, 33,; Tit., iii.6), just as the Father sends the Son (Rom., iii. 3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John, xiv, 26).

For more information on the Filioque, I refer you to the Catholic Encyclopedia -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
« Last Edit: May 15, 2004, 04:46:19 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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #206 on: May 15, 2004, 05:02:24 PM »

Hiya Ben

But I guess that relations is not the same as origin, is it? And the Son sending the Spirit has always been understood, I also guess, as not being the same as saying that the Son is the origin of the Spirit.

Thanks for clarifying the different point of view. I must admit that it does seem one of those issues where you are actually insisting that you DO have a different view.

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,709


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #207 on: May 15, 2004, 05:06:33 PM »

Quote
For more information on the Filioque

I'm no expert but again for your perusal, here's this, a basic overview.
Logged

Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #208 on: May 15, 2004, 05:10:11 PM »

That was a little too basic for me Serge Smiley
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #209 on: May 15, 2004, 05:10:40 PM »

Srege...I think Peter wanted to better understand the Catholic dogma of the Filioque, this is why I gave him a link to the Catholic Encylopedia, which represents the Catholic dogma clearly.
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 #210 on: May 15, 2004, 05:13:54 PM »

Peter....if you wish I can provide you with some more links regarding the filioque...from a Catholic point I view. I realize that the Catholic Encylopedia is quite simplistic, perhaps a little to simple or basic for you.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2004, 05:17:34 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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,645



WWW
« Reply #211 on: May 15, 2004, 05:17:46 PM »

I don't mind that. Thanks.

It seems to me that it would be good to know the RC position as RC's present it, rather than only as those of us who reject the filioque present it. But it does seem to me that you are not resisting an interpretation of your position which makes the Father and the Son the ontological origin of the Spirit as well as the Son the economical origin of the Spirit in His ministry in the world.

If you do not reject that interpretation then I think I understand it but cannot accept it.

But I will read more and from your own community.

Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Jack
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


OC.net


« Reply #212 on: May 18, 2004, 05:38:48 PM »

I'm not sure how the Fathers responded, or would have responded, to this.  But, I'll play the fool and venture a guess.

I suspect they might have pointed out that the relations among the Persons are not merely external attributes that "pertain" to the Persons (like two people might both happen to have the same barber, etc.), but are, in fact, constitutive of each Person.

The Personhood is defined by virtue of the Person's unique relations with another member of the Trinity.  The Father is uniquely the begetter of the Son (not of the Son and the Spirit); the Son is uniquely begotten of the Father (not of the Father and the Spirit); the Spirit is uniquely He who proceeds from the Father (not from the Father and the Son).

If the Father were begetter of both other Persons, then each separate relation of begetting would be, precisely, merely an attribute of the Persons to Whom it happened to pertain, and these Persons would be conceivable apart from that particular relation.  But, that is not so.

If the Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son, then each separate relation of procession would be merely an attribute of the Persons to Whom it happened to pertain, those Persons being conceivable apart from that particular relation.  But, that is not so, either.

We should not allow ourselves to be confused by the analogy between human relations, and the relations within the Trinity.  Clarence is the father of Marvin and Michael.  But, those relations, dear as they are to him, are not constitutive of his very Personhood.  There was a time when Clarence was, but was not a father.  But 'tis not so with the First Person of the Trinity.

To put it another way, it is of the Father's very Personhood (not of the Triune God's Essence, as we showed earlier) that He is the One from Whom the Spirit Proceeds.  If the Son is also such a One, then the Procession of the Spirit is not of the very Personhood of either Father or Son.

But this argument seems to be no more than an elaborate statement of the assumption.  What does it mean to say that an attribute is "constitutive" of the Person, rather than something that pertains to him?  If it means that the attribute can only be true of the Person in question, then it is merely an expression of the assumption.  If it does not mean that, then it is difficult to see how it follows that what is constitutive of one Person cannot be constitutive of another.  Are you saying that everything that is true of one Person cannot be true of the others?  That can't be right, because they share deity as an attribute.

This is the problem with trying to philosophize about the Trinity.  We only know about the Trinity because it has been revealed to the Church.  Nobody could have reasoned their way to the Trinity, as opposed to, say, the existence of God.  So when we try to logically deduce propositions from the Trinity, we are trying to use our reason for something that it was not meant to do.
Logged

NULL