OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 07:34:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: First council of Toledo 397 - 400, Filioque  (Read 12313 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« on: June 01, 2011, 05:02:07 PM »

I know that one of the main issues used by the OC is that Filioque is not counciliar. But when I saw that filioque appeared in the first council of Toledo in Spain, it came to my mind a question, how long did the church of Toledo formaly got out of comunion with Constantinople?.  I mean, did the church of Spain was out of communion since 400?

If they were in communion all those years until 1054, it means that for 654 years the church accepted filioque, or at least didn't broke communion with the spanish church, why then did they used such issue to be as grave as to break 654 years after?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 05:08:36 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,959



« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2011, 05:44:00 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.
Logged

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

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

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2011, 06:06:32 PM »

Additionally, the Filioque wasn't accepted (or included, depending on the argument) in Rome until the early 11th century.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2011, 06:08:27 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2011, 06:09:47 PM »

Additionally, the Filioque wasn't accepted (or included, depending on the argument) in Rome until the early 11th century.

The question is if there is a formal document that excomunicated the church of Spain because of the filioque since then.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2011, 06:55:52 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2011, 06:59:34 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

It was indeed the Third Synod of Toledo.
http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2011, 07:07:08 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

It was indeed the Third Synod of Toledo.
http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

Here is the part I saw:
Quote
Id est ut confiteamur esse patrem qui genuerit ex sua substantia filium sibi coequalem et coaeternum. Non tamen ut ipse idem sit natus ingenitus, sed persona alius sit pater qui genuit, alius sit filius qui fuerit generatus, unius tamen uterque substantiae in divinitate subsistat. Pater ex quo sit filius, ipse vero ex nullo sit alio. Filius quia habeat patrem, sed sine initio et sine diminutione, in ea qua patri coęqualis et coaeternus est divinitate subsistat. Spiritusque sanctus confitendus a nobis, et praedicandus est a patre et filio procedere, et cum patre et filio unius esse substantiae. Tertiam vero in trinitate spiritus sancti esse personam, qui tamen communionem habet cum patre et filio in divinitatis essentia. Haec enim sancta trinitas, unus est deus pater, et filius et spiritus sanctus, cuius bonitate hominis licet bona sit condita creatura per adsumptam tamen a filio humani habitus formam, a damnata progenie reformamur, ad beatitudinem pristinam. Sed sicut vere salutis indicium est trinitatem in unitate, et unitatem ||fol. 65ra|| in trinitate sentiri, ita erit consummata iustitia si eadem intra universalem ecclesiam teneamus, et apostolicam unitatem in apostolico positi fundamento servemus.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:09:02 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2011, 07:17:04 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.

Go to the quote:

EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII  TOLETANI.


Incipit regula fidei catholicae contra omnes hereses, quam maxime contra priscillianistas, episcopi Terraconenses Carthaginenses, Lusitani et Betici fecerunt, ex praecepto papę Urbis Leonis, et ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et superscripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano.

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens. Pater est cuius vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene complacuit, ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a patre exivi, et a deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclytus spiritus est, de quo filius ait: Nisi ||fol. 63rb|| abiero ego ad patrem, paraclytus non veniet. Hanc trinitatem personis distinctam, substantia unitam virtute et potestate [d] et maiestate indivisibilem indifferentem, preter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam vel angeli vel spiritus vel virtutis alicuius quae deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur filium dei deum natum a patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Marię virginis atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum. Hunc et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a Iudeis crucifixum et sepultum, et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis, et quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam dei filium, et filium dei hominis filium appellamus. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanę credimus carnis. Animam autem hominis, non divinae esse substantiae aut dei patris, sed creaturam dei voluntate creatam.


I.

Si quis autem dixerit aut crediderit a deo omnipotente mundum hunc factum non fuisse atque eius omnia instrumenta, anathema sit.


II.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit deum patrem eundem esse filium vel paraclytum, anathema sit.


III.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit filium eundem esse patrem vel paraclytum, anathema sit.


IIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit paraclytum vel patrem esse vel filium. Anathema sit.


V.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit carnem tantum sine anima a filio dei fuisse susceptam, anathema sit.


VI.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit Christum innascibilem esse anathema sit.


VII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatem nascibilem esse, anathema sit.


VIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatem Christi convertibilem fuisse vel passibilem, anathema sit.


VIIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit alterum deum esse priscae legis alterum evangeliorum, anathema sit.


X.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit ab altero deo mundum factum fuisse, et non ab eodem quo scriptum est: ||fol. 63va|| In principio fecit deus caelum et terram, anathema sit.


XI.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit corpora humana non resurgere post mortem, anathema sit.


XII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit animam humanam dei portionem vel dei esse substantiam, anathema sit.


XIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit, alias scripturas praeter quas ecclesia catholica recipit in auctoritate [e] habendas vel esse venerandas, anathema sit.


XIIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatis et carnis unam in Christo esse naturam, anathema sit.


XV.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit esse aliquid quod se extra divinam trinitatem possit extendere, anathema sit.


XVI.

Si quis astrologię vel mathesi existimat esse credendum. Anathema sit.


XVII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit coniugia hominum quae secundum legem divinam licet habere execrabilia esse, anathema sit.


XVIII.

Si quis dixerit vel crediderit carnes avium seu pecudum quae ad escam dandae sunt, non tantum pro castigatione hominum abstinendas, sed execrandas esse, anathema sit.


XVIIII.

Si quis in his erroribus Priscilliani sectam sequitur vel profitetur, ut aliud in salutari baptismo contra sedem sancti Petri faciat, anathema sit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stand: 2008-03-02
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:19:31 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2011, 07:39:27 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2011, 07:51:34 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.

Go to the quote:

EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII  TOLETANI.


Incipit regula fidei catholicae contra omnes hereses, quam maxime contra priscillianistas, episcopi Terraconenses Carthaginenses, Lusitani et Betici fecerunt, ex praecepto papę Urbis Leonis, et ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et superscripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano.

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens. Pater est cuius vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene complacuit, ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a patre exivi, et a deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclytus spiritus est, de quo filius ait: Nisi ||fol. 63rb|| abiero ego ad patrem, paraclytus non veniet. Hanc trinitatem personis distinctam, substantia unitam virtute et potestate [d] et maiestate indivisibilem indifferentem, preter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam vel angeli vel spiritus vel virtutis alicuius quae deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur filium dei deum natum a patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Marię virginis atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum. Hunc et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a Iudeis crucifixum et sepultum, et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis, et quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam dei filium, et filium dei hominis filium appellamus. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanę credimus carnis. Animam autem hominis, non divinae esse substantiae aut dei patris, sed creaturam dei voluntate creatam.

Sho' nuff.

If I recall correctly, one Orthodox theory for the change, the Canons from the Ecumenical councils were written in Greek and Latin (The First Council of Constantinople was in 381, and First Council of Toledo ended in 400). The only place the filioque was transcribed was in the area of Spain. Therefore, one thought, if the photocopy-monk (Probably a Mk II. Those took lots of pee breaks.), when writing saw the line below (who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified) and by accident wrote 'and the son' for the line above, as well.

Either way, the Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council in 431) condemns changes to the creed.
Quote
Canon VII.
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod.  So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html


And more than one Pope condemned it. Including, Pope Leo III (750-816) who scribed lead tablets in in Rome to proclaim the 'true creed' (denouncing the filioque).
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 07:56:00 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2011, 07:54:34 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Logged
Kasatkin fan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Archdiocese of Canada
Posts: 636



« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2011, 07:56:43 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Why would there be such a document?  Huh

Why would anyone be excommunicated over a non-binding council?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2011, 07:57:59 PM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?

See my response. It was not without recorded denouncement.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2011, 08:00:27 PM »

The council of Toledo at which the filioque was proclaimed as a way to counter the arguments of the Visigothic Semi-Arians was in the late sixth century, not the fourth.

I undertand that since the first council the EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII TOLETANI stated the filioque.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

Which canon? I perused the document, but didn't notice the subject raised.

Go to the quote:

EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIO CONCILII  TOLETANI.


Incipit regula fidei catholicae contra omnes hereses, quam maxime contra priscillianistas, episcopi Terraconenses Carthaginenses, Lusitani et Betici fecerunt, ex praecepto papę Urbis Leonis, et ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et superscripta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano.

Credimus [c] in unum verum deum patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra, unum deum et unam esse divinae substantiae trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse filium ipsum, sed habere filium qui pater non sit. Filium non esse patrem, sed filium dei de patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque esse paraclitum, qui nec pater sit ipse, nec filius, sed a patre filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus pater, genitus filius, non genitus paraclitus, sed a patre filioque procedens. Pater est cuius vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene complacuit, ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a patre exivi, et a deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclytus spiritus est, de quo filius ait: Nisi ||fol. 63rb|| abiero ego ad patrem, paraclytus non veniet. Hanc trinitatem personis distinctam, substantia unitam virtute et potestate [d] et maiestate indivisibilem indifferentem, preter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam vel angeli vel spiritus vel virtutis alicuius quae deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur filium dei deum natum a patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Marię virginis atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum. Hunc et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a Iudeis crucifixum et sepultum, et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis, et quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam dei filium, et filium dei hominis filium appellamus. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanę credimus carnis. Animam autem hominis, non divinae esse substantiae aut dei patris, sed creaturam dei voluntate creatam.

Sho' nuff.

If I recall correctly, one Orthodox theory for the change, the Canons from the Ecumenical councils were written in Greek and Latin (The First Council of Constantinople was in 381, and First Council of Toledo ended in 400). The only place the filioque was transcribed was in the area of Spain. Therefore, one thought, if the photocopy-monk (Probably a Mk II. Those took lots of pee breaks.), when writing saw the line below (who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified) and by accident wrote 'and the son' for the line above, as well.

Either way, the Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council in 431) condemns changes to the creed.
Quote
Canon VII.
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
And in like manner, if any, whether bishops, clergymen, or laymen, should be discovered to hold or teach the doctrines contained in the Exposition introduced by the Presbyter Charisius concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten Son of God, or the abominable and profane doctrines of Nestorius, which are subjoined, they shall be subjected to the sentence of this holy and ecumenical Synod.  So that, if it be a bishop, he shall be removed from his bishopric and degraded; if it be a clergyman, he shall likewise be stricken from the clergy; and if it be a layman, he shall be anathematized, as has been afore said.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xvi.x.html


And more than one Pope condemned it. Including, Pope Leo III (750-816) who scribed lead tablets in in Rome to proclaim the 'true creed' (denouncing the filioque).

Where are the formal excomunications of the church of Spain?
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2011, 08:07:16 PM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 08:09:57 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2011, 08:14:34 PM »

Where are the formal excomunications of the church of Spain?

I guess they missed the email. However, you'll notice the EC and the Pope telling anyone doing such to 'knock it off'(The filioque wasn't the only instance of a seperate creed. Read the 4th EC dialogue.)

Word of mouth was slow then.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2011, 08:15:29 PM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?

560 – 636

Fourth Council of Toledo. Canonization was by a different process at the time than it is now in the Latin Church.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2011, 11:41:18 PM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 11:41:42 PM by Alcuin » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2011, 11:48:25 PM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 11:48:53 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2011, 11:53:05 PM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?

560 – 636

Fourth Council of Toledo. Canonization was by a different process at the time than it is now in the Latin Church.

Are you saying that Eastern Christians do not held Saint Isidore as canonical saint?, and as I showed you, since the first Toledo's Council, Filioque was introduced, if he presided the fourth, why didn't he dropped Filioque and yet was in communion with the rest of the church, and even he was considered a saint in both west and east? Can you see how the argument held by Eastern christians falls under the weight of historical evidence?

The point again is that filioque was not a matter of excomunication.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 12:00:26 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2011, 12:47:10 AM »

The historical causes really don't matter much now (They were indeed much more political and cultural than doctrinal, but even then the East did not like the Filioque doctrinally); if the Eastern Orthodox regard the Filioque as heretical they aren't going to want communion with Rome.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2011, 12:58:15 AM »

The Council of Toledo was a Local Council, not an Ecumenical Council. Its decisions have no binding authority within the Church.

Ok I know it, yet, Where is the formal excomunication of the Church of Spain?, which document stated clear that they were out of communion since the year 400?, why did it happened 654 year later?
Are you asking why the Church in the east did not break communion with the Church in the west over this local council at the time of this council? If so, that would seem odd - breaking communion with PART of a see.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2011, 01:03:24 AM »

Even in 1054, Cerularius took himself to have excommunicated Humbert and Pope Leo IX personally (that Leo IX was dead was unknown to both, I believe), not the west collectively. Humbert, likewise, took himself to have excommunicated Cerularius personally (because Leo was dead, Humbert didn't even have the canon law authority to be excommunicating Cerularius), not to have excommunicated the east generally. There really is no formal point of excommunication to look to, the schism developed gradually over history. If there are two distinct points, it's probably the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, neither of which were distinctly ecclesiastical events.

Again, none of this is really that relevant to today. The Churches do not continue in schism because of what happened in 1054, they continue in schism because of continuing doctrinal issues, whether those issues caused schism at the time or not.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:09:14 AM by Alcuin » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2011, 01:23:01 AM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #25 on: June 02, 2011, 01:50:38 AM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #26 on: June 02, 2011, 02:07:31 AM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

Schism initially occurred over it in AD 863, 463 years after the First Council of Toledo, when Photios excommunicated Pope Nicholas I on the grounds of Nicholas' adherence to the double procession of the Holy Spirit, which was 151 years before the Filioque was included in the creed in Rome.

One might regard the Filioque as heretical, but the issue came to a head when it did because of the politics of Papal-Imperial rivalry, not because the East felt they were powerless to do anything about it until some certain point.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:08:05 AM by Alcuin » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #27 on: June 02, 2011, 06:57:55 AM »

Even in 1054, Cerularius took himself to have excommunicated Humbert and Pope Leo IX personally (that Leo IX was dead was unknown to both, I believe), not the west collectively.

I don't know if you intentionally switched the order (Humbert excommunicated the Patriarch first, and in "grand fashion."), but you've got one detail wrong (at least IIRC) - they did find out that Leo IX was in fact deceased, which is why the Cardinals were eventually denied the usual privileges of a legate once the news reached Constantinople (you can't be a legate for a dead man - they needed to go back to Rome and get their credentials from Leo's successor before they could continue to officially negotiate on behalf of the West) - which was likely the straw that broke the camel's back, so to say.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 06:58:07 AM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2011, 07:36:24 AM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

Schism initially occurred over it in AD 863, 463 years after the First Council of Toledo, when Photios excommunicated Pope Nicholas I on the grounds of Nicholas' adherence to the double procession of the Holy Spirit, which was 151 years before the Filioque was included in the creed in Rome.

One might regard the Filioque as heretical, but the issue came to a head when it did because of the politics of Papal-Imperial rivalry, not because the East felt they were powerless to do anything about it until some certain point.
Apparently you are under the misconception that all was hugs and kisses between the so-called Photian schism and 1054. They were not. St. Photios himself, for the sake of unity in the Church, did not press for the Ecumenical Council of 880 (which corrected the false council of 869) to be so named as the Eighth council. Good intentions but lousy result. One may mark the real schism as occurring when east and west designated two different councils as the eighth and 150 years later such ducking of the issue bore its ugly fruit.
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2011, 08:51:31 AM »

The historical causes really don't matter much now (They were indeed much more political and cultural than doctrinal, but even then the East did not like the Filioque doctrinally); if the Eastern Orthodox regard the Filioque as heretical they aren't going to want communion with Rome.

I think that among Eastern Christians there are those who really look for the truth and not political positions, If they are shown that the schism with Rome has no sense with historical evidence, they will think it twice before taking irreductible positions regarding the Catholic Church
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2011, 08:54:50 AM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken. Just remember that even in the east there where saints that proclame the procedence of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son just as the Latin fathers did,  Go to Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (310 -403) in his Ancoratus he wrote:

"Believe that Christ is fron the Father, God of God: the Holy Spirit is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: Proceds from the Father and will recibe from me" (Ancoratus LXVII)

« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 09:15:25 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2011, 09:06:01 AM »

Christ has ascended!
East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken.
Yes, it is heresy. The Church is not mistaken about that.
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #32 on: June 02, 2011, 09:16:49 AM »

Christ has ascended!
East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken.
Yes, it is heresy. The Church is not mistaken about that.

No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 09:30:42 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #33 on: June 02, 2011, 10:12:39 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #34 on: June 02, 2011, 10:12:52 AM »

East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.

Dude, you're pushing an agenda here.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #35 on: June 02, 2011, 10:15:30 AM »

There is a saint venerated in both Catholic Church and among Eastern christians, Saint Isidore of Seville. He presided in some councils of Toledo. He presided the church of Spain, Is there any writing of him deposing or rejecting filioque?

560 – 636

Fourth Council of Toledo. Canonization was by a different process at the time than it is now in the Latin Church.

Are you saying that Eastern Christians do not held Saint Isidore as canonical saint?, and as I showed you, since the first Toledo's Council, Filioque was introduced, if he presided the fourth, why didn't he dropped Filioque and yet was in communion with the rest of the church, and even he was considered a saint in both west and east? Can you see how the argument held by Eastern christians falls under the weight of historical evidence?

The point again is that filioque was not a matter of excomunication.

You're pulling a non sequitur. The cause of the schism in the late 11th century was not filioque, but papal supremacy. Filioque was a contributing factor later when Latin theologians started defending it as truth, ignorant of its history and theological error, and blatantly ignoring the ecumenical councils forbidding additions to the Creed. That it was added originally was regrettable and problematic, but excusable given the context.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2011, 10:17:30 AM »

Even in 1054, Cerularius took himself to have excommunicated Humbert and Pope Leo IX personally (that Leo IX was dead was unknown to both, I believe), not the west collectively. Humbert, likewise, took himself to have excommunicated Cerularius personally (because Leo was dead, Humbert didn't even have the canon law authority to be excommunicating Cerularius), not to have excommunicated the east generally. There really is no formal point of excommunication to look to, the schism developed gradually over history. If there are two distinct points, it's probably the Massacre of the Latins in 1182 and the Sack of Constantinople in 1204, neither of which were distinctly ecclesiastical events.

Again, none of this is really that relevant to today. The Churches do not continue in schism because of what happened in 1054, they continue in schism because of continuing doctrinal issues, whether those issues caused schism at the time or not.

No, it was known that Leo IX was dead and the bull invalid.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #37 on: June 02, 2011, 10:24:03 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

And, indeed, Rome dealt with the problem. St. Leo III had two silver plaques with the creed, sans filioque, written in Greek and Latin. Pope John VIII also championed Orthodoxy. It was not until the coronation of Emperor St. Henry II in 1004, IIRC, that filioque was used liturgically in Rome, at the instigation of the Germans.. The clause then appeared in the pope of Rome's systatic letter, the confession which patriarchs send to each other upon elevation, and the pope's name was struck from the diptychs of Constantinople, but maybe not other patriarchates. There was no schism at Antioch until 1100 when the Greek patriarch was illegally replaced with a Latin bishop, making two competing bishops in one city contrary to the canons.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #38 on: June 02, 2011, 10:29:39 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

I only see contradiction in your statement; you see the church of Spain as part of the Church of Rome, and not as part of the Catholic Church,  and to hold that St. Agustine and St. Isidore where blessed when teaching “heresies” makes no sense at all. The only possible sense is that Filioque was never heresy at all, but a theological dispute not enough to break communion.  Or would you say that those Saints where out of communion with you for teaching Filioque? If so, Why do you hold them as saints, No sense at all.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2011, 11:22:12 AM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

I only see contradiction in your statement; you see the church of Spain as part of the Church of Rome, and not as part of the Catholic Church,  and to hold that St. Agustine and St. Isidore where blessed when teaching “heresies” makes no sense at all. The only possible sense is that Filioque was never heresy at all, but a theological dispute not enough to break communion.  Or would you say that those Saints where out of communion with you for teaching Filioque? If so, Why do you hold them as saints, No sense at all.


No contradiction at all. What IS evident is that you cannot either read or comprehend what you read. At no point did I say that the Spanish Church" was not part of the Church Catholic. STOP deliberately misrepresenting my words with this sort of annoying dodge. Ditto that with both SAINTS Augustine and Isidore.
You're not too used to losing Internet arguments, are you? What you persist in demanding - proof that we did not break communion with PART of the Church of Rome is valid. It is an all or nothing thing. Rome was Orthodox, its Spanish bishops not so. Hence we did not break communion with Rome over a part (and a new one at that) of itself in error . How silly.
Further argument is pointless, useless in fact.
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2011, 12:14:33 PM »


No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400. and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
This is a nonsensical argument you persist in making. Once again, the "Spanish Church" was in the see of Rome and NOT OUR PROBLEM until the Church of Rome adopted this innovation. It was up to Rome to deal with the error (heresy, by definition) and it did so for a very long time, thereby remaining Orthodox.
As to St. Isidore, we also hold St Augustine to be so blessed, but neither, indeed no man, was/is perfect.

I only see contradiction in your statement; you see the church of Spain as part of the Church of Rome, and not as part of the Catholic Church,  and to hold that St. Agustine and St. Isidore where blessed when teaching “heresies” makes no sense at all. The only possible sense is that Filioque was never heresy at all, but a theological dispute not enough to break communion.  Or would you say that those Saints where out of communion with you for teaching Filioque? If so, Why do you hold them as saints, No sense at all.


No contradiction at all. What IS evident is that you cannot either read or comprehend what you read. At no point did I say that the Spanish Church" was not part of the Church Catholic. STOP deliberately misrepresenting my words with this sort of annoying dodge. Ditto that with both SAINTS Augustine and Isidore.
You're not too used to losing Internet arguments, are you? What you persist in demanding - proof that we did not break communion with PART of the Church of Rome is valid. It is an all or nothing thing. Rome was Orthodox, its Spanish bishops not so. Hence we did not break communion with Rome over a part (and a new one at that) of itself in error . How silly.
Further argument is pointless, useless in fact.


You can state what you want but it is clear that having saints that teached "heresies" is quite contradicotry un less such heresy was not heresy at all.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #41 on: June 02, 2011, 12:19:28 PM »

Christ has ascended!
East and West remained in communion for centuries with much of the west using the filioque, but it was always a point of deep contention. Though to my mind mostly because both sides leveraged it for political gain and because of the mutual cultural antipathy between Greeks and Latins.

Exactly, that is the real point.  Filioque never was the cause of separation, and it is not. The cause is POLITICAL.
The filioque is heresy, and issued by the Visigoth king and the Germanic emperor. Is that the politics you are refering to?

No, it is not heresy, you are mistaken.
Yes, it is heresy. The Church is not mistaken about that.

No heresy, show me the Formal excomunication of the whole church of Spain  since the year 400.
Formal, as in the formal and material hairsplitting your ecclesiastical communion never tires of, e.g. trying to exonerate the anathematized heretical Pope Honorius? (the Sixth Ecumenical Council issued a rather formal excommunication against him by name, but it didn't stop your Vatican from trying to pass Pastor Aeternus off as Apostolic teaching).  The Second Ecumenical Council-not in communion with Rome at the time, btw-set its seal on the Creed and forbade changing it, something the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus and the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon reitereated.  

Once the rest of the Church (including at the time Rome) got wind of what the Germanic rulers had done, they tried to correct them.  The Church is in the repentance, not damnation, business.  Only when the patriarch of the West adopted it, defended it, and persisted in it, did the first anathema come, in the Pan Orthodox Council of Constantinople IV (879):
Quote
Jointly sanctifying and preserving intact the venerable and divine teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which has been established in the bosom of our mind, with unhesitating resolve and purity of faith, as well as the sacred ordinances and canonical stipulations of his holy disciples and Apostles with an unwavering judgement, and indeed, those Seven holy and ecumenical Synods which were directed by the inspiration of the one and the same Holy Spirit and effected the [Christian] preaching, and jointly guarding with a most honest and unshakeable resolve the canonical institutions invulnerable and unfalsified, we expel those who removed themselves from the Church, and embrace and regard worthy of receiving those of the same faith or teachers of orthodoxy to whom honor and sacred respect is due as they themselves ordered. Thus, having in mind and declaring all these things, we embrace with mind and tongue (τῇ διανοίᾳ καὶ γλώσσῃ) and declare to all people with a loud voice the Horos (Rule) of the most pure faith of the Christians which has come down to us from above through the Fathers, subtracting nothing, adding nothing, falsifying nothing; for subtraction and addition, when no heresy is stirred up by the ingenious fabrications of the evil one, introduces disapprobation of those who are exempt from blame and inexcusable assault on the Fathers. As for the act of changing with falsified words the Horoi (Rules, Boundaries) of the Fathers is much worse that the previous one. Therefore, this holy and ecumenical Synod embracing whole-heartedly and declaring with divine desire and straightness of mind, and establishing and erecting on it the firm edifice of salvation, thus we think and loudly proclaim this message to all:

"I believe in One God, Father Almighty, ... and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord ... who proceeds from the Father... [the whole Creed is cited here]

Thus we think, in this confession of faith we were we baptized, through this one the word of truth proved that every heresy is broken to pieces and canceled out. We enroll as brothers and fathers and coheirs of the heavenly city those who think thus. If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases (ἰδίαις εὑρεσιολογίαις) and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely (κατακιβδηλεῦσαι ἀποθρασυνθείη) the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people.
http://home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/dragas_eighth.html

This was held in response to EP St. Photios the Great's call for it to the Patriarchs:
Quote
Countless have been the evils devised by the cunning devil against the race of men, from the beginning up to the coming of the Lord. But even afterwards, he has not ceased through errors and heresies to beguile and deceive those who listen to him. Before our times, the Church, witnessed variously the godless errors of Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Discorus, and a foul host of others, against which the holy Ecumenical Synods were convened, and against which our holy and God-bearing Fathers battled with the sword of the Holy Spirit. Yet, even after these heresies had been overcome and peace reigned, and from the Imperial Capital the streams of Orthodoxy flowed throughout the world; after some people who had been afflicted by the Monophysite heresy returned to the True Faith because of your holy prayers; and after other barbarian peoples, such as the Bulgarians, had turned from idolatry to the knowledge of God and the Christian Faith: then was the cunning devil stirred up because of his envy.

For the Bulgarians had not been baptised even two years when dishonourable men emerged out of the darkness (that is, the West), and poured down like hail or, better, charged like wild boars upon the newly-planted vineyard of the Lord, destroying it with hoof and tusk, which is to say, by their shameful lives and corrupted dogmas. For the papal missionaries and clergy wanted these Orthodox Christians to depart from the correct and pure dogmas of our irreproachable Faith.

They attempted by their false opinions and distorted words to ruin the holy and sacred Nicene Symbol of Faith — which by both synodal and universal decisions possesses invincible power — by adding to it that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Symbol declares, but from the Son also. Until now, no one has ever heard even a heretic pronounce such a teaching. What Christian can accept the introduction of two sources into the Holy Trinity; that is, that the Father is one source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is another source of the Holy Spirit, thereby transforming the monarchy of the Holy Trinity into a dual divinity?

And why should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as well as from the Father? For if His procession from the Father is perfect and complete — and it is perfect because He is perfect God from perfect God — then why is there also a procession from the Son? The Son, moreover, cannot serve as an intermediary between the Father and the Spirit because the Spirit is not a property of the Son. If two principles, two sources, exist in the divinity, then the unity of the divinity would be destroyed. If the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, His procession from the Father alone would of necessity be either perfect or imperfect. If it is imperfect, then procession for two hypostases would be much more contrived and less perfect than procession from one hypostasis alone. If it is not imperfect, then why would it be necessary for the Spirit to also proceed from the Son?

If the Son participates in the quality or property of the Father's own hypostasis, then the Son and the Spirit lose their own personal distinctions. Here one falls into semi-Sabellianism. The proposition that in the divinity there exist two principles, one which is independent and the other which receives its origin from the first, destroys the very root of the Christian conception of God. It would be much more consistent to expound these two principles into three, for this would be more in keeping with the human understanding of the Holy Trinity.

But since the Father is the principle and source, not because of the nature of the divinity, but because of the property of the hypostasis (and the hypostasis of the Father does not include the hypostasis of the Son), the Son cannot be a principle or source. The Filioque actually divides the hypostasis of the Father into two parts, or else the hypostasis of the Son becomes a part of the hypostasis of the Father. By the Filioque teaching, the Holy Spirit is two degrees or steps removed from the Father, and thus has a much lower rank than the Son. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, then of the three Divine Hypostases, the Holy Spirit alone has more than one origin or principle.

By the teaching of the procession from the Son also, the Father and the Son are made closer to each other than the Father and the Spirit, since the Son possesses not only the Father's nature but also the property of His Person. The procession of the Spirit from the Son is either the same as that from the Father, or else it is different, in which case there exists an opposition in the Holy Trinity. A dual procession cannot be reconciled with the principle that what is not common to the three hypostases belongs exclusively to only one of the three hypostases. If the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, why then would something not proceed from the Spirit, so that the balance between the Divine Hypostases would therefore be maintained?

By the teaching that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the Father appears partial towards the Son. The Father is either a greater source of the Spirit than the Son, or a lesser source. If greater, the dignity of the Son is offended; if lesser, the dignity of the Father is offended. The Latins make the Son greater than the Spirit, for they consider Him a principle, irreverently placing Him closer to the Father. By introducing a dual principle into the Holy Trinity as they do, the Latins offend the Son, for by making Him a source of that which already has a source, they thus render Him unnecessary as a source. They also divide the Holy Spirit into two parts: one part from the Father and one part from the Son. In the Holy Trinity, which is united in an indivisible unity, all three hypostases are inviolable. But if the Son contributes to the procession of the Spirit, Sonship is then injured, and the hypostatic property damaged.

If, by the begetting of the Son, the power was thereby given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when He, Who Himself has a source, became a source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a granson! If the Father is the source of the Son, who is the second source of the Spirit, then the Father is both immediate and the mediated source of the Holy Spirit! A dual source in the divinity inescapably concludes in a dual result; therefore, the hypostasis of the Spirit must be dual. Therefore, the teaching of the Filioque introduces into the divinity two principles, a dyarchy, which destroys the unity of the divinity, the monarchy of the Father.

Having here explained the Latin understanding only briefly, I will leave its detailed presentation and refutation until we are assembled together in council. These so-called bishops thus introduced this foul teaching, together with other impermissible innovations, among the simple and newly-baptised Bulgarian people. This news cut us to the heart. How can we not grieve when we see before our eyes the fruit of our womb, the child to whom we gave birth through the Gospel of Christ, being rent asunder by beasts? He who by his sweat and suffering raised them and perfected them in the Faith, suffers the greatest pain and sorrow upon the destruction of his children. Therefore, we mourn for our spiritual children, and we will not cease from mourning. For we will not give sleep to our eyes until, to the extent that lies in our power, we return them to the House of the Lord.

Which was reiterated by the Pan Orthodox Council of Constantinople V
http://home.comcast.net/~t.r.valentine/orthodoxy/filioque/tomos1285.html

and explain us widely why Saint Isidore of Seville is also recognized as saint among Eastern Christinas  when in the fourth council of Toledo he didn't rejected Filioque from the First Council of Toledo.
It's from the third council of Toledo, and he seems ignorant of it an addition.

Quote
The historical appearance of Frankish theology coincides with the beginnings of the Filioque controversy. Since the Roman Fathers of the Church took a strong position on this issue, as they did on the question of Icons (also condemned initially by the Franks), the Franks automatically terminated the patristic period of theology with Saint John of Damascus in the East (after they accepted the Seventh Ecumenical Synod) and Isidore of Seville in the West. After this, the Roman Empire no longer can produce Fathers of the Church because the Romans rejected the Frankish Filioque. In doing so, the Romans withdrew themselves from the central trunk of Christianity (as the Franks understood things) which now becomes identical with Frankish Christianity, especially after the East Franks expelled the Romans from the Papacy and took it over themselves.
http://reocities.com/heartland/5654/orthodox/romanides_filioque.html
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #42 on: June 02, 2011, 01:11:20 PM »

Photios is a schismatic, no authority at all. If not clear refference to Spain on the matter, then no Excomunication.  where is the excomunication of St Agustine?,  why do you hold  him as a Saint if teaching "heresies"?.

Since the first council of Toledo filioque appears, just few year after the council of Constantinople, I brought the refference you can read it.  and Saint Isidore never rejected it even presiding the fourth council of Toledo. yet he remains being a Saint among of eastern christian. What about Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (310 -403) in his Ancoratus he wrote:

"Believe that Christ is fron the Father, God of God: the Holy Spirit is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: Proceds from the Father and will recibe from me" (Ancoratus LXVII)

He lived during the Council of Constantinople time, yet he teached that the the Holy Spirit also proceds from the Son. and he is not a Western Father but an East One. 
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 01:12:06 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #43 on: June 02, 2011, 01:46:07 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Photios is a schismatic, no authority at all.

Only to hertics and schismatics, but the blessings of heretics are curses and the curses of heretics are blessings.

God has glorified EP St. Photios the Great, Pillar of Orthodoxy.
If not clear refference to Spain on the matter, then no Excomunication.
 
I doubt that the Patriarchs, in the centers of civilization, knew what was going on in that backwater in that forgotten fringe of the empire, or its part in the creation of the filioque heresy.  Rome's antics had come to their attention, and hence they were dealig with them.

where is the excomunication of St Agustine?,  why do you hold  him as a Saint if teaching "heresies"?.

Because he admitted he was only attempting to understand, and frankly admitted his ignorance of Greek but stating his Faith that in the Greek Fathers having dogmatized correctly.

Since the first council of Toledo filioque appears, just few year after the council of Constantinople,
No, Toledo III, a century later.

I brought the refference you can read it.  and Saint Isidore never rejected it even presiding the fourth council of Toledo.


yet he remains being a Saint among of eastern christian.
St. Photios the Great more so, but that means nothing to you, so why should we care for your heretical opinions about Isodore?

What about Saint Epiphanius of Salamis (310 -403) in his Ancoratus he wrote:

"Believe that Christ is fron the Father, God of God: the Holy Spirit is from Christ, or from both, as Christ says: Proceds from the Father and will recibe from me" (Ancoratus LXVII)
He also, later in his Panarion, replicates the Creed without filioque.  He was corrected, and he accepted correction.

He lived during the Council of Constantinople time, yet he teached that the the Holy Spirit also proceds from the Son. and he is not a Western Father but an East One. 
First provide where St. Epiphanios says He proceeds from the Son.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2011, 02:01:06 PM »

Photios is a schismatic, no authority at all.

You mean Saint Photios?
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #45 on: June 02, 2011, 02:06:37 PM »

Photios is a schismatic, no authority at all.

You mean Saint Photios?

saint?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,086


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 02, 2011, 02:07:48 PM »

He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #47 on: June 02, 2011, 02:23:17 PM »

Photios was a schismatic, no glory at all only that which he receives from those schismatics like him. May God have mercy of them.

Your justification on Saint Agustin hold as an eastern saint  does not make sense at all, if Agustine taught Heresy, even in ignorance of greek "t"radition, he couldn't be saint.  Or He is realy a saint and filioque is not a heresy. That easy.

Did you read already the refference I brought of the first council of Toledo?

Do you have the document that states that Saint Epiphanius was corrected by someone?, Who and how corrected him?, is there evidence of that, or just circunstancial evidence?

Please do not multiquote, quite tiring, is that your strategy?
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #48 on: June 02, 2011, 02:23:55 PM »

He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.

yes I know. I just can't find his sainthood.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:24:51 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #49 on: June 02, 2011, 02:29:44 PM »

He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.

yes I know. I just can't find his sainthood.

"Our father among the saints Photius the Great (also Photios; Greek Φωτιoς), Patriarch of Constantinople, is considered one of the greatest patriarchs of Constantinople. His feast day is celebrated on February 6.

"St. Photius was condemned as patriarch by the Robber Council of 869-870, but the Eighth Ecumenical Council (879-880) affirmed his restoration to his see. Although he was accused of causing the "Photian" Schism, he was recognized as a major peacemaker of that time. He reconciled with Patriarch Ignatius, who named him as his successor (for a second time) upon Ignatius' death in 877."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Photius_the_Great



Follower of the Apostles' way
And teacher of mankind:
Intercede, O Photius, with the Lord of all,
To grant peace to the world
And to our souls great mercy!

That rabbit trail has reached its end, I'd say. Back to the thread. police
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:46:42 PM by bogdan » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2011, 02:48:09 PM »

He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.

yes I know. I just can't find his sainthood.

"Our father among the saints Photius the Great (also Photios; Greek Φωτιoς), Patriarch of Constantinople, is considered one of the greatest patriarchs of Constantinople. His feast day is celebrated on February 6.

"St. Photius was condemned as patriarch by the Robber Council of 869-870, but the Eighth Ecumenical Council (879-880) affirmed his restoration to his see. Although he was accused of causing the "Photian" Schism, he was recognized as a major peacemaker of that time. He reconciled with Patriarch Ignatius, who named him as his successor (for a second time) upon Ignatius' death in 877."

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Photius_the_Great



Follower of the Apostles' way
And teacher of mankind:
Intercede, O Photius, with the Lord of all,
To grant peace to the world
And to our souls great mercy!

That rabbit trail has reached its end, I'd say. Back to the thread. police


Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,843


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2011, 02:48:46 PM »


Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.
No he didn't.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2011, 02:55:28 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 02:55:42 PM by bogdan » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2011, 02:59:40 PM »

I wonder of Dattaswami has become Roman Catholic.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2011, 03:06:47 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Photios was a schismatic, no glory at all only that which he receives from those schismatics like him. May God have mercy of them.
Christ I know, and St. Photios I know, but who are you?


Your justification on Saint Agustin hold as an eastern saint  does not make sense at all, if Agustine taught Heresy, even in ignorance of greek "t"radition, he couldn't be saint.  Or He is realy a saint and filioque is not a heresy. That easy.
Or you don't know what you are talking about.  That is easy to see.

Other than Christ, no one is 100%.  Even your Vatican doesn't claim that your supreme pontiffs are 100%.  If God overlooks St. Augustine's self admitted shortcomings, who am I to argue with the judgement of His Church?

Did you read already the refference I brought of the first council of Toledo?
the Latin text? Yes.  Before I comment on that, tell us, can you read it?

Do you have the document that states that Saint Epiphanius was corrected by someone?, Who and how corrected him?, is there evidence of that, or just circunstancial evidence?
If St. Ephiphanius' own writing is circumstantial, then it's circumstantial.

Please do not multiquote, quite tiring, is that your strategy?
You have demonstrated problems with citation and quotes, and therefore you prefer your agenda.  Given the tedium of that agenda, who are you to complain of being "tired."
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 03:07:14 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2011, 03:08:25 PM »

Christ is ascended!
He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.

yes I know. I just can't find his sainthood.
Because you walk in Darkness.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2011, 03:34:13 PM »

He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.
He's on the Byzantine Catholic calendar.  Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2011, 03:37:39 PM »

Christ is ascended!
He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.
He's on the Byzantine Catholic calendar.  Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
I'm sure the Grand Inquistor thinks he knows bettter than the Vatican on that as well.  Even the Latins who don't consider him a saint still insist that he died in communion with Rome.
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2011, 03:50:04 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,843


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2011, 03:53:00 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
Nuh-uh.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2011, 03:57:29 PM »

...



...

thanks for your eloquence
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 03:58:54 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2011, 04:08:34 PM »

Christ is ascended!
He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.

yes I know. I just can't find his sainthood.
Because you walk in Darkness.

Thank you Brother of Light.
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #62 on: June 02, 2011, 04:09:55 PM »

He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.
He's on the Byzantine Catholic calendar.  Wink

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes, that sounds crazy to me, I imagine that Photios is jumping of Joy to see that osme of his believers went back to the Catholic Church while he didn't.
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #63 on: June 02, 2011, 04:10:57 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

What heresy? Filioque, yet you proclaim that Saint Agustine is a Saint, don't you?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,843


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #64 on: June 02, 2011, 04:11:36 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

What heresy? Filioque, yet you proclaim that Saint Agustine is a Saint, don't you?
Here we go...
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #65 on: June 02, 2011, 04:17:22 PM »

I wonder of Dattaswami has become Roman Catholic.

No he is closest to the East, so he may have more contact with EOs.
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #66 on: June 02, 2011, 04:18:19 PM »

Christ is ascended!
He's a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. As far as I know, Roman Catholics do not consider him a saint.
He's on the Byzantine Catholic calendar.  Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
I'm sure the Grand Inquistor thinks he knows bettter than the Vatican on that as well.  Even the Latins who don't consider him a saint still insist that he died in communion with Rome.


That doesn't make him a saint.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:18:30 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #67 on: June 02, 2011, 04:19:05 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
The Fathers of the Catholic Church who assembled in 381 in Constantantinople and set the Church's seal upon the Creed were not at the time in communion with Rome.

It's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Not "Roman Church."
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #68 on: June 02, 2011, 04:19:36 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

What heresy? Filioque, yet you proclaim that Saint Agustine is a Saint, don't you?

We don't glorify saints solely based on their Dogmatic Theology test scores.
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #69 on: June 02, 2011, 04:20:24 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
The Fathers of the Catholic Church who assembled in 381 in Constantantinople and set the Church's seal upon the Creed were not at the time in communion with Rome.

It's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Not "Roman Church."


I am catholic, not Roman, though thank you all for using latin letters.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:22:19 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #70 on: June 02, 2011, 04:21:37 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

What heresy? Filioque, yet you proclaim that Saint Agustine is a Saint, don't you?

We don't glorify saints solely based on their Dogmatic Theology test scores.

Well that is why we can undestand palamas as a saint among of you. another schismatic.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #71 on: June 02, 2011, 04:21:58 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I see you are speechless.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #72 on: June 02, 2011, 04:22:08 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #73 on: June 02, 2011, 04:22:54 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I see you are speechless.

 No comment on the big void of your words
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:23:11 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #74 on: June 02, 2011, 04:24:20 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:24:43 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #75 on: June 02, 2011, 04:25:05 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
The Fathers of the Catholic Church who assembled in 381 in Constantantinople and set the Church's seal upon the Creed were not at the time in communion with Rome.

It's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Not "Roman Church."


I am catholic, not Roman, though thank you all for using latin letters.
Which you got from the Greeks (who got them from us Semites). I can easily use others.


You are ultramontanist, which is neither Catholic, nor the heritage of Orthodox Rome.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #76 on: June 02, 2011, 04:27:17 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

What heresy? Filioque, yet you proclaim that Saint Agustine is a Saint, don't you?

We don't glorify saints solely based on their Dogmatic Theology test scores.

Well that is why we can undestand palamas as a saint among of you. another schismatic.

Whatever.

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #77 on: June 02, 2011, 04:27:30 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I see you are speechless.

 No comment on the big void of your words
Btw, have you answered the question: can you read the mass of Latin text you posted?  Or are you void of understanding that big catch of words?
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #78 on: June 02, 2011, 04:28:33 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
The Fathers of the Catholic Church who assembled in 381 in Constantantinople and set the Church's seal upon the Creed were not at the time in communion with Rome.

It's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Not "Roman Church."


I am catholic, not Roman, though thank you all for using latin letters.
...
...


pity, More void comments.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:29:23 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #79 on: June 02, 2011, 04:30:31 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?
On the Rock of Christ, leaning on His pillars of Orthodoxy He erected to hold up His Church.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #80 on: June 02, 2011, 04:32:25 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?

With Saints Photios, Palamas, and Peter: in the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Smiley
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:33:39 PM by bogdan » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #81 on: June 02, 2011, 04:33:16 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
The Fathers of the Catholic Church who assembled in 381 in Constantantinople and set the Church's seal upon the Creed were not at the time in communion with Rome.

It's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Not "Roman Church."


I am catholic, not Roman, though thank you all for using latin letters.
...
...


pity, More void comments.
In other words, you are void of understanding them.

Btw, since this is not the foreign language forum, it is usual that you are required to post a translation in English, the lingua franca here.  Before a moderator is notified to demand this of you, I'll ask you again: do you know what you posted?  Or are you posting in ignorance?
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #82 on: June 02, 2011, 04:36:25 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
The Fathers of the Catholic Church who assembled in 381 in Constantantinople and set the Church's seal upon the Creed were not at the time in communion with Rome.

It's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Not "Roman Church."


I am catholic, not Roman, though thank you all for using latin letters.
...
...


pity, More void comments.
In other words, you are void of understanding them.

Btw, since this is not the foreign language forum, it is usual that you are required to post a translation in English, the lingua franca here.  Before a moderator is notified to demand this of you, I'll ask you again: do you know what you posted?  Or are you posting in ignorance?


Let me introduce you the innovative tool of the Translator of Google.

http://translate.google.com/?hl=es&tab=wT#la|en|
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:45:47 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #83 on: June 02, 2011, 04:37:53 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?
On the Rock of Christ, leaning on His pillars of Orthodoxy He erected to hold up His Church.



You?  Cheesy
Logged
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #84 on: June 02, 2011, 04:39:54 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?

With Saints Photios, Palamas, and Peter: in the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Smiley

Pity, you missundertand, The Rock is Christ and he left the keys to Peter, whose  succesors are in Rome.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2011, 04:46:28 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,238


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 02, 2011, 04:46:05 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

What heresy? Filioque, yet you proclaim that Saint Agustine is a Saint, don't you?

We don't glorify saints solely based on their Dogmatic Theology test scores.

Well that is why we can undestand palamas as a saint among of you. another schismatic.

By the way, our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters venerate ST GREGORY PALAMAS on the Second Sunday of the Great Fast each year.

I wouldn't bother arguing with this new poster, he strikes me as the alter-ego of another new poster who popped up the other day making equally inane arguments, purportedly as an extremely anti Roman Orthodox poster. Very similar rhetorical style.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #86 on: June 02, 2011, 04:50:34 PM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?

With Saints Photios, Palamas, and Peter: in the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Smiley

Pity, you missundertand The Rock is Christ, and he left the keys to Peter, Whose  succesors are in Rome.
Heretics and schismatics cannot succeed Apostles.

but St. Peter still has a successor in his first see

and the original Pope still succeeds St. Peter's disciple St. Mark the Evangelist


and all the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church with them continue to exercise the power of the keys.  Which is how you are locking yourself out of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #87 on: June 02, 2011, 04:55:31 PM »


Christ is ascended!
Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.
The Fathers of the Catholic Church who assembled in 381 in Constantantinople and set the Church's seal upon the Creed were not at the time in communion with Rome.

It's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Not "Roman Church."


I am catholic, not Roman, though thank you all for using latin letters.
...
...


pity, More void comments.
In other words, you are void of understanding them.

Btw, since this is not the foreign language forum, it is usual that you are required to post a translation in English, the lingua franca here.  Before a moderator is notified to demand this of you, I'll ask you again: do you know what you posted?  Or are you posting in ignorance?


Let me introduce you the innovative tool of the Translator of Google.

http://translate.google.com/?hl=es&tab=wT#la|en|
Then you shouldn't have a problem a) supplying the translation (as is the forum rules here) and b) state what proof text in it supports your agenda. Or is the Translator of Google beyond your abilities?
Logged

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

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,108


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #88 on: June 02, 2011, 05:48:39 PM »

OC Net gets the most...colorful characters...
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 02, 2011, 08:21:52 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.
Logged

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

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


« Reply #90 on: June 02, 2011, 09:03:33 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 02, 2011, 09:11:58 PM »

Instead of the "he said/she said" arguement, can we go back to substantiating our claims.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 02, 2011, 09:26:04 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Im bored..thass all
Logged

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

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


« Reply #93 on: June 02, 2011, 09:27:38 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Im bored..thass all

Me, too!
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2011, 09:28:35 PM »

Instead of the "he said/she said" arguement, can we go back to substantiating our claims.
But proper history is part of that process, no?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 02, 2011, 10:47:25 PM »

This is getting even more confusing.
You ask a specific question and get direct answers. Now you wish to make a speculative generalization?
The filioque was indeed an issue but was not a problem outside of the see of Rome for  well prior to the eighth century, but as long as the Bishop of Rome adhered to orthodox faith the rest of the Church could not really do much about it.

That makes no sense since the pope was hardly the head of the universal Church at the time.

And THAT makes no sense. The Spanish bishops had just accepted the Bishop of Rome and in trying to rein in the lingering Arianism added the filioque. They were very much under him at that time.
And at NO time was the Bishop of Rome the "head" of the universal Church unless, of course, you are willing to allow that we have been correct all along (which we have been) and that his role WAS different then from what you folks claim now.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Im bored..thass all

Me, too!

 Smiley  But its only a temporary condition!!
Logged

Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #96 on: June 03, 2011, 10:02:51 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?

With Saints Photios, Palamas, and Peter: in the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Smiley

Pity, you missundertand The Rock is Christ, and he left the keys to Peter, Whose  succesors are in Rome.
Heretics and schismatics cannot succeed Apostles.

but St. Peter still has a successor in his first see
...
and the original Pope still succeeds St. Peter's disciple St. Mark the Evangelist


and all the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church with them continue to exercise the power of the keys.  Which is how you are locking yourself out of the Kingdom of Heaven.


Yes, What ever... perhap peter forgot his keys in Antiochi when moving to Rome.  I guess you can tell us now when did Saint Epiphnius rejecte that the Holy Spirit comes form the Son.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2011, 10:07:26 AM by Inquisitor » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #97 on: June 03, 2011, 10:56:47 AM »

Instead of the "he said/she said" arguement, can we go back to substantiating our claims.
But proper history is part of that process, no?

Proper history would be substantiation in this case, I would think.  Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #98 on: June 03, 2011, 11:25:07 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?

With Saints Photios, Palamas, and Peter: in the Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church. Smiley

Pity, you missundertand The Rock is Christ, and he left the keys to Peter, Whose  succesors are in Rome.
Heretics and schismatics cannot succeed Apostles.

but St. Peter still has a successor in his first see
...
and the original Pope still succeeds St. Peter's disciple St. Mark the Evangelist


and all the bishops in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church with them continue to exercise the power of the keys.  Which is how you are locking yourself out of the Kingdom of Heaven.


Yes, What ever... perhap peter forgot his keys in Antiochi when moving to Rome. 
I guess so
Quote
In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shown greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349).
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
Quote
I guess you can tell us now when did Saint Epiphnius rejecte that the Holy Spirit comes form the Son.
It is your job to show that he believed that the Spirit proceedes from the Son.

Speaking of your job, have you translated all that Latin you posted, evidently in ignorance of all what it says?  Can you read it?  Understand it?

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #99 on: June 05, 2011, 01:53:29 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?
On the Rock of Christ, leaning on His pillars of Orthodoxy He erected to hold up His Church.


Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,843


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #100 on: June 05, 2011, 03:17:00 AM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Christianity and Judaism have always defined themselves against the Nations.  Wink

Not trying to be offensive, just pointing out the perspective.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #101 on: June 05, 2011, 04:28:03 AM »

Where are his merits. he divided the church of the east from the Catholic Church and from him the nationalistic pride of east grew.

He preserved the Catholic Church from falling into heresy.

No Catholic Churhc without communion with Rome.

If Rome ceases to proclaim the faith once delivered to the Apostles, that faith believed always, everywhere, by all, then yes it is. The Church is defined in terms of truth, not in terms of cities.

Yes, in terms of truth, all is about truth, where do you stand?
On the Rock of Christ, leaning on His pillars of Orthodoxy He erected to hold up His Church.


Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
"Orthodoxy" used to apply to the "Roman Church" too.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 05, 2011, 05:04:08 AM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 05:04:44 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 05, 2011, 11:11:23 AM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?

I think you are very sure of yourself, and not always with good reason.  I find it instructive that the Catholic Church never defines herself or her teachings by what any others do, but rather by Eucharist:

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Are we saying that knowledge is eternal life? Are we saying that to know the one true and living God will suffice to give us complete security for the future without need of anything else? Then how is “faith apart from works dead”? When we speak of faith, we mean the true knowledge of God and nothing else, since knowledge comes by faith. The prophet Isaiah tells us this: “If you do not believe, neither shall you understand.” But he is not talking about a knowledge that consists in barren speculations, which is entirely worthless. For one of the holy disciples said, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.” What then shall we say to this? How is it that Christ speaks the truth when he says that eternal life is the knowledge of God the Father, the one true God, and with him of the Son? I think, indeed, we must answer that the saying of the Savior is completely true. For this knowledge is life, laboring as it were in birth of the whole meaning of the mystery and granting to us participation in the mystery of the Eucharist, whereby we are joined to the living and life-giving Word. And for this reason, I think, Paul says that the Gentiles are made fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of Christ, inasmuch as they partake in his blessed body and blood. And our members may in this sense be conceived of as being members of Christ. This knowledge, then, which also brings to us the Eucharist by the Spirit, is life. For it dwells in our hearts, reshaping those who receive it into sonship with him and molding them into incorruption and piety toward God through life, according to the Gospel. Our Lord Jesus Christ, then, knowing that the knowledge of the one true God brings to us and promotes our union with the blessings of which we have spoken, says that it is eternal life. It is the mother and nurse of eternal life, being in its power and nature pregnant with those things that cause life and lead to life.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 11.5 , in Joel C. Elowsky (ed). John 11-21 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture) 231.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #104 on: June 05, 2011, 12:00:44 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #105 on: June 05, 2011, 12:33:06 PM »

Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.

Wrong.  Orthodoxy defines itself by Christ and the Spirit Who makes Him manifest amongst us.  We clarify points in opposition to misconceptions, untruths, etc., but we define ourselves in, by, through, and in relation to Christ.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 12:33:22 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 05, 2011, 12:50:40 PM »

Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.

Wrong.  Orthodoxy defines itself by Christ and the Spirit Who makes Him manifest amongst us.  We clarify points in opposition to misconceptions, untruths, etc., but we define ourselves in, by, through, and in relation to Christ.

This is fine as an assertion, Father, but I sit here with a rather large library full of books by Orthodox priests and scholars and with very rare exception they begin with describing how what they are teaching or about to teach differs from the teachings of the nebulous "west" or more often specifically the Catholic west.

It gets even stranger when some of them completely misrepresent the Catholic west and then go on to teach precisely what the Catholic west teaches that they have just denied that they teach.

Now I have to tell you, that is more than passing confusing to wade through in trying to figure out what it is precisely that Orthodoxy does teach. 

Your denial of it does not lend credibility to an already confused composite of teachings...because as I have noted before I have a dozen texts that are regularly used to catechize in Orthodox parishes and there are glaring inconsistencies contained among them with such things as original sin, the priesthood, the atonement and other regularly contested teachings.

Some day you might want to step outside and take a look back at what some of us out here actually are looking at.
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #107 on: June 05, 2011, 03:16:27 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #108 on: June 05, 2011, 03:19:40 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
I have an account over there but I have never really been active. I belong to another Catholic forum that is a much smaller group and the people are nice and more respectful.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 05, 2011, 08:42:43 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 05, 2011, 09:39:41 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.

Until you cut off so much hair, that cutting anymore is cutting yourself.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #111 on: June 05, 2011, 10:00:55 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.
Of course, but then again this is the 21st century. We're not going to burn heretics anymore either. Thankfully, there are many who realize there is a less harsh, more charitable way of dealing with people. Screaming heretic at every turn is not it.
Logged
WetCatechumen
Roman Catholic
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic Christianity
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite - Archdiocese of Santa Fe; Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix
Posts: 297



« Reply #112 on: June 05, 2011, 10:07:43 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #113 on: June 05, 2011, 10:10:28 PM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
It would seem that, for many, Orthodoxy is built upon the foundation Romaphobic paranoia. Fortunately, the Rock that we are stabilized on is sturdier. Wink
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 10:11:23 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 05, 2011, 10:34:10 PM »

Fortunately, the Rock that we are stabilized on is sturdier. Wink
You mean St. Peter? If I recall he wasn't so sturdy- having denied Christ three times and then choosing the wrong doctrinal side in the circumcision debate in the Church so that St. Paul had to say: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2:11)
The Orthodox Church is founded on Christ. Much more sturdier. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #115 on: June 05, 2011, 10:51:38 PM »

Fortunately, the Rock that we are stabilized on is sturdier. Wink
You mean St. Peter? If I recall he wasn't so sturdy- having denied Christ three times and then choosing the wrong doctrinal side in the circumcision debate in the Church so that St. Paul had to say: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2:11)
The Orthodox Church is founded on Christ. Much more sturdier. Smiley
Actually I too was talking about Christ. St. Peter is only the Rock because the Supreme Rock (Christ) appointed him as such. That doesn't negate the fact that Christ is the Rock of the Catholic Church as well, but then again you already knew that. You're just again demonstrating the true rock of Orthodoxy, perhaps unintentionally.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 05, 2011, 11:12:28 PM »

St. Peter is only the Rock because the Supreme Rock (Christ) appointed him as such.
You think so? I disagree. The Rock on which Christ founded the Church was St. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God- not St. Peter himself. But of course, you already knew that. Smiley

 
You're just again demonstrating the true rock of Orthodoxy, perhaps unintentionally.
Careful. Your Orthodoxophobia is showing. Smiley So much for your delusion that Catholicism is uber-nice to "other Christians".
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:17:40 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #117 on: June 05, 2011, 11:16:32 PM »

You think so? I disagree. The Rock on which Christ founded the Church was St. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God- not St. Peter himself. But of course, you already knew that. Smiley
You think so, huh? Funny how the name Peter (Kepha) itself means "rock."

Careful. Your Orthodoxophobia is showing. Smiley
Funny thing about phobias is they are irrational fears. Not what often goes on here. Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #118 on: June 05, 2011, 11:18:03 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #119 on: June 05, 2011, 11:20:31 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
I have an account over there but I have never really been active. I belong to another Catholic forum that is a much smaller group and the people are nice and more respectful.
Most choirs are to their preacher.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #120 on: June 05, 2011, 11:21:42 PM »

St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something. If, when going through RCIA classes, I would have been told "the Catholic Church teaches x and we are clearly correct unlike the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox who teach y and z and are clearly heretical" I would have been totally turned off by it. The thing that drew me towards Catholicism was the fact that the Catholic Church didn't engage in bashing all the other religions.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:22:47 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #121 on: June 05, 2011, 11:23:57 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
Have you been to Catholic Answers?  laugh

In Christ,
Andrew
I have an account over there but I have never really been active. I belong to another Catholic forum that is a much smaller group and the people are nice and more respectful.
Most choirs are to their preacher.
No, I mean we have not only Eastern Orthodox Christians and Protestant Christians, but Muslims, agnostics, atheists, etc. and people are, for the most part, respectful to everyone.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 05, 2011, 11:24:28 PM »

You think so? I disagree. The Rock on which Christ founded the Church was St. Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God- not St. Peter himself. But of course, you already knew that. Smiley
You think so, huh? Funny how the name Peter (Kepha) itself means "rock."
Actually, "petros" ( St Peter's name) means "stone". "Petra" ( which is what Christ founded the Church on) means "rock". Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.

Careful. Your Orthodoxophobia is showing. Smiley
Funny thing about phobias is they are irrational fears. Not what often goes on here. Wink
So your fears are rational? There is a cure for all fears - perfect love drives them all out.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:26:36 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #123 on: June 05, 2011, 11:27:55 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
So, Isa, could we say if those of the RCC taught heresy in, say Mongolia, we'd still be just as against the heresy as if it were anywhere else? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #124 on: June 05, 2011, 11:28:35 PM »

Christ is ascended!
Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.

Wrong.  Orthodoxy defines itself by Christ and the Spirit Who makes Him manifest amongst us.  We clarify points in opposition to misconceptions, untruths, etc., but we define ourselves in, by, through, and in relation to Christ.

This is fine as an assertion, Father, but I sit here with a rather large library full of books by Orthodox priests and scholars and with very rare exception they begin with describing how what they are teaching or about to teach differs from the teachings of the nebulous "west" or more often specifically the Catholic west.

In English?

Such librairies don't exist in Russian, Serbian, Greek, etc. because they are not needed.  No one there compares the Orthodox to the Vatican, so there is no need to first correct misconceptions.

It gets even stranger when some of them completely misrepresent the Catholic west and then go on to teach precisely what the Catholic west teaches that they have just denied that they teach.
Such as?

Now I have to tell you, that is more than passing confusing to wade through in trying to figure out what it is precisely that Orthodoxy does teach.
Hundreds of millions of us have no such problem.

Your denial of it does not lend credibility to an already confused composite of teachings...because as I have noted before I have a dozen texts that are regularly used to catechize in Orthodox parishes and there are glaring inconsistencies contained among them with such things as original sin, the priesthood, the atonement and other regularly contested teachings.
I do recall you claiming so many times, but did I miss you documenting such a charge?

Some day you might want to step outside and take a look back at what some of us out here actually are looking at.
You forget, many of us have. That's why we are now inside.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #125 on: June 05, 2011, 11:31:41 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
So, Isa, could we say if those of the RCC taught heresy in, say Mongolia, we'd still be just as against the heresy as if it were anywhere else? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Actually since in Mongolia the Orthodox are the Christian presence, we don't need to get sidetracked into correcting Vatican heresies, and can start out with correct doctrine straight.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #126 on: June 05, 2011, 11:33:52 PM »

Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.
And if course you know that this is the same lame argument that Protestants attempt to use against the Catholic Church's Petrine claims. In Aramaic (the language that Christ and the Apostles spoke) there was one word for Peter (Kepha), So Christ literally said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." Greek is where you run into the different forms of the word rock.

So your fears are rational? There is a cure for all fears - perfect love drives them all out.
I am striving for that perfect love through the sanctifying Grace I receive in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2011, 11:34:36 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #127 on: June 05, 2011, 11:38:44 PM »

Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.
And if course you know that this is the same lame argument that Protestants attempt to use against the Catholic Church's Petrine claims. In Aramaic (the language that Christ and the Apostles spoke) there was one word for Peter (Kepha), So Christ literally said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." Greek is where you run into the different forms of the word rock.
So now you need to join with the Peshitta primacists to justify this false teaching?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #128 on: June 05, 2011, 11:40:34 PM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

If, when going through RCIA classes, I would have been told "the Catholic Church teaches x and we are clearly correct unlike the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox who teach y and z and are clearly heretical" I would have been totally turned off by it. The thing that drew me towards Catholicism was the fact that the Catholic Church didn't engage in bashing all the other religions.
Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #129 on: June 06, 2011, 08:13:10 AM »

I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
I like how my Church manages to define what it believes without denigrating other Christian communities.
You do realise that for the first millennium we actually shared a common history. The dogmas defined by the first Seven Ecumenical Councils were decreed in opposition to heresies which were pronounced anathema. We approach the Truth by cutting away what is not true.

That same principle still applies, in the Catholic Church. For example, the Council of Trent asserted the list of Old Testament books, 7 sacraments, Mary's perpetual virginity, etc., in response to those who were denying those teachings.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #130 on: June 06, 2011, 08:15:22 AM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #131 on: June 06, 2011, 08:48:51 AM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?
Yes, but the author of this icon named three men venerated by the Orthodox for opposing the Roman Church - and they all lived in different times.

It would have been one thing if the icon showed St. Athanasius, St. Leo, and St. Photios, and was labeled "Pillars of Orthodoxy", because then Orthodoxy would be defined in the icon as opposed to heterodoxy - where St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus are grouped in this icon specifically because of opposition to the Roman Church.
The Vatican?  Like you said,  they are grouped as opposed to heterodoxy, or rather, heresy.

St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
So, Isa, could we say if those of the RCC taught heresy in, say Mongolia, we'd still be just as against the heresy as if it were anywhere else? Wink

In Christ,
Andrew
Actually since in Mongolia the Orthodox are the Christian presence, we don't need to get sidetracked into correcting Vatican heresies, and can start out with correct doctrine straight.
I guess I was trying to say that it wouldn't matter where heresies were coming from, Rome or elsewhere, Orthodoxy would offer the solution to the heresy. The Pillars of Orthodoxy are not a result of a hatred for the RCC or anything western, but for the certain false teachings that those Saints had to fight and overcame with the Lord's grace.

Of course, Protestants could say similar things to the RCC about people they have canonized. Theoretically, they could level criticism of folks like Thomas More and Francis de Sales in the same way the RCC complains about the Pillars and others. Right?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #132 on: June 06, 2011, 09:27:30 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.

Wrong.  Orthodoxy defines itself by Christ and the Spirit Who makes Him manifest amongst us.  We clarify points in opposition to misconceptions, untruths, etc., but we define ourselves in, by, through, and in relation to Christ.

This is fine as an assertion, Father, but I sit here with a rather large library full of books by Orthodox priests and scholars and with very rare exception they begin with describing how what they are teaching or about to teach differs from the teachings of the nebulous "west" or more often specifically the Catholic west.

In English?

Such librairies don't exist in Russian, Serbian, Greek, etc. because they are not needed.  No one there compares the Orthodox to the Vatican, so there is no need to first correct misconceptions.


Nice try but many of them are translated from the original to English and those are the ones most likely to have the most to say about what Orthodoxy is not in terms of being not like the Catholic west...They are also the ones most likely to get the Catholic teaching very confused so that what they are presenting to Orthodoxy is something we probably would not want to teach either.

And so the myths continue to be perpetuated...for those who are most willing to accept them and not look elsewhere or accept correction.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #133 on: June 06, 2011, 09:30:46 AM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.



Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.

If you google his name you will find some student evaluations of his work as an Arabic teacher in Illinois.  Those evaluations will give you some fairly good insight into what we are dealing with here.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 09:31:28 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #134 on: June 06, 2011, 10:27:33 AM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #135 on: June 06, 2011, 11:14:15 AM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #136 on: June 06, 2011, 11:38:12 AM »

I would say this thread has gotten off-topic, but the OP itself wasn't a very honest question either, as subsequently revealed motives have shown. So, carry on. Beat that dead horse. It deserves it.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #137 on: June 06, 2011, 11:41:28 AM »

Christ is ascended!
Catholic veneration of St. Gregory Palamas and St. Photios notwithstanding, I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.

Wrong.  Orthodoxy defines itself by Christ and the Spirit Who makes Him manifest amongst us.  We clarify points in opposition to misconceptions, untruths, etc., but we define ourselves in, by, through, and in relation to Christ.

This is fine as an assertion, Father, but I sit here with a rather large library full of books by Orthodox priests and scholars and with very rare exception they begin with describing how what they are teaching or about to teach differs from the teachings of the nebulous "west" or more often specifically the Catholic west.

In English?

Such librairies don't exist in Russian, Serbian, Greek, etc. because they are not needed.  No one there compares the Orthodox to the Vatican, so there is no need to first correct misconceptions.


Nice try but many of them are translated from the original to English and those are the ones most likely to have the most to say about what Orthodoxy is not in terms of being not like the Catholic west
I didn't say such books do not exist: there is, after all a niche that they supply, and it would just make sense where the need is greatest that they would draw on such resources.  That would, of course, give a scewed view of what exists in Serbian, Russian, Greek etc. for those who cannot read those languages, particularly those, like yourself, with an agenda.

The Catechism that St. Innocent prepared in Aleut "Indication of the Way into the Kingdom of Heaven," the first catechism for North America, translated into many languages, including Russian (where thereupon it was used throughout the Russian Empire) mentions the Vatican only here:
Quote
It is important also to study our God-given faith in detail, since he who is indifferent toward truth is in danger of becoming easy prey for false teachers. It is so sad that many Orthodox Christians perish simply because of their disregard for Christ's teachings. Having access to the light, they wander in the dark.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/kingdomofheaven.aspx

But then St. Innocent had the luxury of teaching in an Orthodox land (although there were heterodox: St. Innocent allowed the Lutherans to build their cathedral church, and allowed Polish priests to come into Alaska to minister to subjects in submission to the Vatican).  His sponsor, mentor and predecessor, Met. St. Philoret, also composed a cathechism which not only was long the official catechism of the Russian Church, used throughout the Empire, but also in the Kingdom of Greece, the Ottoman empire, etc...  And he only alludes, for instance, to the filioque, just so no one (like in Galicia, Poland, the Baltics states, Finland or among the Francophile nobility) was led astray by the Vatican's propoganda directed at them:
Quote
241.  Whence know we that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father?

This we know from the following words of Jesus Christ himself: 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. John xv. 26.

242.  Does the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father admit of any change or supplement?

No. First, because the Orthodox Church, in this doctrine, repeats the very words of Jesus Christ; and his words, without doubt, are an exact and perfect expression of the truth. Secondly, because the second œcumenical Council, whose chief object was to establish the true doctrine respecting the Holy Ghost, has without doubt sufficiently set forth the same in the Creed; and the Catholic Church [i.e. not the Vatican] has acknowledged this so decidedly, that the third œcumenical Council in its seventh canon forbade the composition of any new Creed.

For this cause John Damascene writes: Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that he is from the Father, and call him the Spirit of the Father; while we nowise say that he is from the Son, but only call him the Spirit of the Son. (Theol. lib. i. c. 11; v. 4.)
btw, for the OP's other thread on the need for many Patriarchs:
Quote
261.  How does it agree with the unity of the Church, that there are many separate and independent churches, as those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia?

These are particular churches, or parts of the one Catholic Church: the separateness of their visible organization does not hinder them from being all spiritually great members of the one body of the Universal Church, from having one Head, Christ, and one spirit of faith and grace. This unity is expressed outwardly by unity of Creed, and by communion in prayer and Sacraments.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

...They are also the ones most likely to get the Catholic teaching very confused so that what they are presenting to Orthodoxy is something we probably would not want to teach either.
Given the history of the selling of the "unions," I'm sure you wouldn't.  Clarity in what the Vatican teaches (and the vacancy in the Ruthenian hiearchy in Pittburgh while the new agent has been already sent to Kiev, the recent ban on married clergy issued in Italy to the Vatican's eastern agent in Romania (the western one there of course already bans married priests) on top of the ban in North America, obfuscation on the filioque in the requirements of being a "real Catholic" etc. should shed light on the real situation) isn't in the interest of "union."

And so the myths continue to be perpetuated...for those who are most willing to accept them and not look elsewhere or accept correction indoctrination/re-education.
Fixed that for you.

The only myths seem to be the misty illusion you have about the Vatican and her history and teaching.  I, and many, many others, have gone through the much vaunted CCC, only to be told, when we cite it, that it is not "authoritative"!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #138 on: June 06, 2011, 11:51:39 AM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.
I walked in every morning to the Vatican flag, and a portrait of its supreme pontiff, and his doctrines were what they taught in the classes (my freshman year I was the only one who knew all the holy days of obligation-the first question the brother asked to start the year-and the only one with a perfect score on the final exam (in the interest of full disclosure, one of the questions wasn't on the Vatican-it asked the denomination (Episcopalian) of the church we went to when we went on field trip to the cardinal's cathedral), and I was the only one not in submission to the Vatican in the class.  Every mass he had (and I took communion, btw, although I was Evangelical Lutheran), they commemorated "John Paul our pope."

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
No.
Quote
270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.

273.  What thoughts and remembrances should we associate with the name of the Eastern Church?

In Paradise, planted in the East, was founded the first Church of our parents in innocence; and in the East, after the fall, was laid a new foundation of the Church of the redeemed, in the promise of a Saviour. In the East, in the land of Judæa, our Lord Jesus Christ, having finished the work of our salvation, laid the foundation of his own proper Christian Church: from thence she spread herself over the whole universe; and to this day the orthodox Catholic œcumenical faith, confirmed by the seven œcumenical Councils, is preserved unchanged in its original purity in the ancient Churches of the East, and in such as agree with them, as does by God's grace the Church of Russia.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

The school did not, and does not, "agree with them."
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 11:54:56 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #139 on: June 06, 2011, 12:01:45 PM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.
I walked in every morning to the Vatican flag, and a portrait of its supreme pontiff, and his doctrines were what they taught in the classes (my freshman year I was the only one who knew all the holy days of obligation-the first question the brother asked to start the year-and the only one with a perfect score on the final exam (in the interest of full disclosure, one of the questions wasn't on the Vatican-it asked the denomination (Episcopalian) of the church we went to when we went on field trip to the cardinal's cathedral), and I was the only one not in submission to the Vatican in the class.  Every mass he had (and I took communion, btw, although I was Evangelical Lutheran), they commemorated "John Paul our pope."

That sounds like a lot of support for my notion that said school is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican).

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
No.
Quote
270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.

273.  What thoughts and remembrances should we associate with the name of the Eastern Church?

In Paradise, planted in the East, was founded the first Church of our parents in innocence; and in the East, after the fall, was laid a new foundation of the Church of the redeemed, in the promise of a Saviour. In the East, in the land of Judæa, our Lord Jesus Christ, having finished the work of our salvation, laid the foundation of his own proper Christian Church: from thence she spread herself over the whole universe; and to this day the orthodox Catholic œcumenical faith, confirmed by the seven œcumenical Councils, is preserved unchanged in its original purity in the ancient Churches of the East, and in such as agree with them, as does by God's grace the Church of Russia.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #140 on: June 06, 2011, 12:07:12 PM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #141 on: June 06, 2011, 12:10:46 PM »

Christ is ascended!
I find it very interesting that "Orthodoxy" defines itself by opposition to the Roman Church.
Of course Orthodoxy defines itself as distinct to heterodox dogmas. I don't understand why people on this and other recent threads are suddenly so stunned to find that a Church which for millennia has used apophatic theology to explain it's dogmas, defines it's dogmas by what they are not......isn't that the whole gist of apophatic theology?

I think you are very sure of yourself, and not always with good reason.  I find it instructive that the Catholic Church never defines herself or her teachings by what any others do, but rather by Eucharist:

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Are we saying that knowledge is eternal life? Are we saying that to know the one true and living God will suffice to give us complete security for the future without need of anything else? Then how is “faith apart from works dead”? When we speak of faith, we mean the true knowledge of God and nothing else, since knowledge comes by faith. The prophet Isaiah tells us this: “If you do not believe, neither shall you understand.” But he is not talking about a knowledge that consists in barren speculations, which is entirely worthless. For one of the holy disciples said, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.” What then shall we say to this? How is it that Christ speaks the truth when he says that eternal life is the knowledge of God the Father, the one true God, and with him of the Son? I think, indeed, we must answer that the saying of the Savior is completely true. For this knowledge is life, laboring as it were in birth of the whole meaning of the mystery and granting to us participation in the mystery of the Eucharist, whereby we are joined to the living and life-giving Word. And for this reason, I think, Paul says that the Gentiles are made fellow members of the body and fellow partakers of Christ, inasmuch as they partake in his blessed body and blood. And our members may in this sense be conceived of as being members of Christ. This knowledge, then, which also brings to us the Eucharist by the Spirit, is life. For it dwells in our hearts, reshaping those who receive it into sonship with him and molding them into incorruption and piety toward God through life, according to the Gospel. Our Lord Jesus Christ, then, knowing that the knowledge of the one true God brings to us and promotes our union with the blessings of which we have spoken, says that it is eternal life. It is the mother and nurse of eternal life, being in its power and nature pregnant with those things that cause life and lead to life.

Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 11.5 , in Joel C. Elowsky (ed). John 11-21 (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture) 231.
The Catholic Church does so define hereself, but as your ecclesiastical organization defines itself by submission to the Vatican (after all, what is the difference between the Eucharist of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which your Ruthenians hold as "valid," and that of your Ruthenians?), your point and its documentation (a rare occurance from you, btw) are off point.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #142 on: June 06, 2011, 12:19:12 PM »

Christ is ascended!
St. Athanasius opposed Arianism, St. Leo opposed monophysitism (not to be confused with OO theology).  The Three Hiearchs (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory are also Pillars of Orthodoxy). For the same reason: they preached Orthodoxy against heresy.
That's not a practical approach nowadays when there are a plethora of heresies. It is best to just let orthodoxy stand on its own rather than to set it up against something.
the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.

Well to each his own I guess. In the Catholic Church we exorcise demons.

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this Vatican-run school you attended.
http://www.gordontech.org/

Thanks for the link, but I don't think that school is Vatican-run.
I walked in every morning to the Vatican flag, and a portrait of its supreme pontiff, and his doctrines were what they taught in the classes (my freshman year I was the only one who knew all the holy days of obligation-the first question the brother asked to start the year-and the only one with a perfect score on the final exam (in the interest of full disclosure, one of the questions wasn't on the Vatican-it asked the denomination (Episcopalian) of the church we went to when we went on field trip to the cardinal's cathedral), and I was the only one not in submission to the Vatican in the class.  Every mass he had (and I took communion, btw, although I was Evangelical Lutheran), they commemorated "John Paul our pope."

That sounds like a lot of support for my notion that said school is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican).
Well George Orwell taught us all the danger of terms being redefined, and you again demonstrate his point.  As for me, I'm going to stick with the definition of Patriarch St. Ignatius, who first attests to the term.

Perhaps you just meant to say that it is Catholic (i.e. in communion with the Vatican)?
No.
Quote
270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.

273.  What thoughts and remembrances should we associate with the name of the Eastern Church?

In Paradise, planted in the East, was founded the first Church of our parents in innocence; and in the East, after the fall, was laid a new foundation of the Church of the redeemed, in the promise of a Saviour. In the East, in the land of Judæa, our Lord Jesus Christ, having finished the work of our salvation, laid the foundation of his own proper Christian Church: from thence she spread herself over the whole universe; and to this day the orthodox Catholic œcumenical faith, confirmed by the seven œcumenical Councils, is preserved unchanged in its original purity in the ancient Churches of the East, and in such as agree with them, as does by God's grace the Church of Russia.
http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse.  In fact, I just did.  We are as Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch defined us over 19 centuries.  That since then Rome has redefined itself into the Vatican, and tries to redefine the Church and her Faith to follow suit, isn't our problem.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: June 06, 2011, 12:26:08 PM »

I could say the same in reverse.  In fact, I just did.  We are as Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch defined us over 19 centuries.  That since then Rome has redefined itself into the Vatican, and tries to redefine the Church and her Faith to follow suit, isn't our problem.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

And we'll be beating this dead horse with the same old Chick-like assertions...
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #144 on: June 06, 2011, 12:40:28 PM »

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #145 on: June 06, 2011, 12:42:02 PM »

While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #146 on: June 06, 2011, 12:54:35 PM »

I could say the same in reverse.  In fact, I just did.  We are as Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch defined us over 19 centuries.  That since then Rome has redefined itself into the Vatican, and tries to redefine the Church and her Faith to follow suit, isn't our problem.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

And we'll be beating this dead horse with the same old Chick-like assertions...
...and the same cackling from the hen house it seems.

Patriarch St. Ignatius does not define the Catholic Church by any reference to Rome.  He speaks of the local bishop, and nothing of Rome putting him there, nothing about him commemorating Rome (over Antioch or Alexandria).  So totally unlike the situation of your Ruthenian see of Pittsburgh.

Since I've never seen any evidence that Chick knows the original meaning of "Catholic," but assUmes that it is catholic=Vatican, it seems that you are operating under the same assertions as Jack.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #147 on: June 06, 2011, 01:00:08 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #148 on: June 06, 2011, 01:04:13 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #149 on: June 06, 2011, 01:31:29 PM »

Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.
And if course you know that this is the same lame argument that Protestants attempt to use against the Catholic Church's Petrine claims. In Aramaic (the language that Christ and the Apostles spoke) there was one word for Peter (Kepha), So Christ literally said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." Greek is where you run into the different forms of the word rock.
So now you need to join with the Peshitta primacists to justify this false teaching?
Did Christ and the Apostles and the majority of those in first century Palestine speak Aramaic or didn't they?

the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.
So everyone who is outside of Eastern Orthodoxy is under demonic influence?

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.
Anytime I hear Protestants brought up it is virtually always to point out some misconception that Protestants have about our Church that isn't true. In my experience, we do not take to bashing Protestant beliefs left and right. In fact, I am probably one of the most hardcore Catholics when it comes to giving Protestants a hard time, but since I was one before entering the Church I think I am allowed to vent my grievances.

Our apologetics don't work on you? That's funny, just a little ways back in the thread ozgeorge played the lame Petros/Petra to "disprove" Petrine primacy as believed in my Church. If you all want us to stop using Protestant apologetics on you then, here's a hint, stop acting like Protestants.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 01:32:50 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #150 on: June 06, 2011, 01:54:08 PM »

Christ founded the Church on the Rock (Petra) and called St. Peter the Stone (petros). But you already knew that.
And if course you know that this is the same lame argument that Protestants attempt to use against the Catholic Church's Petrine claims. In Aramaic (the language that Christ and the Apostles spoke) there was one word for Peter (Kepha), So Christ literally said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." Greek is where you run into the different forms of the word rock.
So now you need to join with the Peshitta primacists to justify this false teaching?
Did Christ and the Apostles and the majority of those in first century Palestine speak Aramaic or didn't they?
That they did, but they wrote in Greek, the language of all the inspired texts we have of the NT.

the Church exercises demons before calling the Spirit in.
So everyone who is outside of Eastern Orthodoxy is under demonic influence?
Why did the Apostles preface the rite of baptism with exercism?

Never had RICA, but I did go to a school run by the Vatican where we had religion class: unless some great change happened in the 90's, they talk plenty about the Protestants (not so much the Orthodox).  I listen to relevant radio, and there is constant reference to Protestants (again, not so much Orthodox: judging by the things they say, they want to pretend we don't exist, so as not to admit their apologetics and polemics against the Protestants won't work on us.
Anytime I hear Protestants brought up it is virtually always to point out some misconception that Protestants have about our Church that isn't true.
like the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, carrying the Vatican's nihil obstate and imprematur, saying that infallibility was a "Protestant lie," l'm sure.

In my experience, we do not take to bashing Protestant beliefs left and right.
Can't speak to your experience, except that it, as you purport it, differs from that of your correligionists and what they broadcast.

In fact, I am probably one of the most hardcore Catholics when it comes to giving Protestants a hard time, but since I was one before entering the Church I think I am allowed to vent my grievances.
funny, I don't have any need to vent my grievances against the Protestants.

Our apologetics don't work on you? That's funny, just a little ways back in the thread ozgeorge played the lame Petros/Petra to "disprove" Petrine primacy as believed in my Church. If you all want us to stop using Protestant apologetics on you then, here's a hint, stop acting like Protestants.
I am not ozgeorge.

You're the one "prooftexting," and the one appealing to "original texts." Ozgeorge is dealing with the actual inspired text, which is in Greek. And the meaning that the Fathers, the vast majority and their consensus, taught on the identity of the Rock.  That you are protesting against the understanding of the Fathers isn't our problem.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #151 on: June 06, 2011, 02:19:15 PM »

That they did, but they wrote in Greek, the language of all the inspired texts we have of the NT.
Was the Greek the original copy of the NT, or just the earliest copy we have been able to find? Isn't the variation between petros and petra similar to the gender differences is languages such as Spanish, as in one is masculine and the other feminine? If that's the case then your argument is essentially like saying there is a difference in meaning in the words "uno" and "una."

Why did the Apostles preface the rite of baptism with exercism?
Either to expel evil or to prevent its influence. Still doesn't mean everyone is possessed that isn't Eastern Orthodox.

like the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, carrying the Vatican's nihil obstate and imprematur, saying that infallibility was a "Protestant lie," l'm sure.
Infallibility still is a Protestant lie in the way that Protestants portray it. They think it is as ridiculous and exaggerated as if the Pope walks outside and declares the sky green, we must all believe it is green. I like the First Vatican Council because it finally put the whole question to rest. Yes, there are times when the Pope is infallible, but the council made it clear that him speaking infallibly on his own is quite rare and several conditions must be met before he can speak infallibly. This shouldn't be looked upon as a scandal by Protestants because there are many Protestants that hang onto every word their pastor says and elevate him above the authority that we believe the Pope has.

Can't speak to your experience, except that it, as you purport it, differs from that of your correligionists and what they broadcast.
Well when you are a Catholic convert, especially a convert from Protestantism, many times you have a lot of baggage that you have to, through prayer and Grace, eventually overcome.

funny, I don't have any need to vent my grievances against the Protestants.
Well I am glad that your experience of Protestantism was full of joy and happiness. Unfortunately not everyone has had that same experience.

I am not ozgeorge.

You're the one "prooftexting," and the one appealing to "original texts." Ozgeorge is dealing with the actual inspired text, which is in Greek. And the meaning that the Fathers, the vast majority and their consensus, taught on the identity of the Rock.  That you are protesting against the understanding of the Fathers isn't our problem.
Which fathers am I protesting? Also, did Jesus speak Aramaic or didn't He?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 02:19:44 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #152 on: June 06, 2011, 03:02:38 PM »

Christ is ascended!
That they did, but they wrote in Greek, the language of all the inspired texts we have of the NT.
Was the Greek the original copy of the NT, or just the earliest copy we have been able to find?

My, what a Protestant approach to scripture. 

The text as accepted by the Church is in Greek. You and the Protestants can argue if St. Matthew wrote it in Aramaic or Greek.

Isn't the variation between petros and petra similar to the gender differences is languages such as Spanish, as in one is masculine and the other feminine? If that's the case then your argument is essentially like saying there is a difference in meaning in the words "uno" and "una."
Not my argument, but no, as "uno" and "una" mean the same thing. "El papa" means "the Pope."  "La papa" means "the potato."  But if you want to insist on the similiarity, I won't stop you.

Why did the Apostles preface the rite of baptism with exercism?
Either to expel evil or to prevent its influence. Still doesn't mean everyone is possessed that isn't Eastern Orthodox.
Take your a chances.   If you are going to expel evil or prevent its influence, go to someone who can do that.

like the Anglo-Irish Catechism of 1870, carrying the Vatican's nihil obstate and imprematur, saying that infallibility was a "Protestant lie," l'm sure.
Infallibility still is a Protestant lie in the way that Protestants portray it. They think it is as ridiculous and exaggerated as if the Pope walks outside and declares the sky green, we must all believe it is green.
I've known plenty of your correlgionists who come close to that description.

There are plenty of Protestants who know of the dogma of infallibilty as the CCC teaches it, and still reject it, with reason.

I like the First Vatican Council because it finally put the whole question to rest.
Had it done that, the Vatican could give a list of all those infallible pronouncements.  Instead all its theologians have to read tea leaves.

Yes, there are times when the Pope is infallible, but the council made it clear that him speaking infallibly on his own is quite rare and several conditions must be met before he can speak infallibly.
yes, jesuitry would make sure he has wiggle room.

Give that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff whether he is speaking infallibly or not, if you did believe as your characature of the Protestants' understanding of your belief, what would you be doing different?


This shouldn't be looked upon as a scandal by Protestants because there are many Protestants that hang onto every word their pastor says and elevate him above the authority that we believe the Pope has.
Well, Protestantism is the other side of the Vatican's coin.

Can't speak to your experience, except that it, as you purport it, differs from that of your correligionists and what they broadcast.
Well when you are a Catholic convert, especially a convert from Protestantism, many times you have a lot of baggage that you have to, through prayer and Grace, eventually overcome.

funny, I don't have any need to vent my grievances against the Protestants.
Well I am glad that your experience of Protestantism was full of joy and happiness. Unfortunately not everyone has had that same experience.

I am not ozgeorge.

You're the one "prooftexting," and the one appealing to "original texts." Ozgeorge is dealing with the actual inspired text, which is in Greek. And the meaning that the Fathers, the vast majority and their consensus, taught on the identity of the Rock.  That you are protesting against the understanding of the Fathers isn't our problem.
Which fathers am I protesting? Also, did Jesus speak Aramaic or didn't He?
St. John Chrysostom, for one.  Fr. Ambrose has posted the numbers and specifics here several times. 

Christ did speak Aramaic, but, except for a few words and senteneces-and this isn't one of them-all we have recorded is in Greek.  You can join the Protestants in their quest of conjecture to attempt to get beyond that fact.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #153 on: June 06, 2011, 03:16:06 PM »

The text as accepted by the Church is in Greek. You and the Protestants can argue if St. Matthew wrote it in Aramaic or Greek.
I was more just curious if there is an older copy that is in Aramaic. It doesn't matter though. The language that was spoke at the time was Aramaic, and Christ said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church. The meaning is clear in the original language spoken.

Not my argument, but no, as "uno" and "una" mean the same thing. "El papa" means "the Pope."  "La papa" means "the potato."  But if you want to insist on the similiarity, I won't stop you.
How can you be sure that the Petros/Petra thing is like el papa/la papa and not uno/una? Again, to reiterate, none of this matters because in the spoken language of Christ and the Apostles it was simply Kepha and Kepha.

Take your a chances.   If you are going to expel evil or prevent its influence, go to someone who can do that.
My priest can do that.

There are plenty of Protestants who know of the dogma of infallibilty as the CCC teaches it, and still reject it, with reason.
And that's their decision.

Had it done that, the Vatican could give a list of all those infallible pronouncements.  Instead all its theologians have to read tea leaves.
We know the teachings of our Church are true. Splitting hairs over whether any given teaching is an ex cathedra pronouncement or simply the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium doesn't seem like that crucial of a thing to know. Maybe it irritates those on the outside, but they are already irritated with us anyway so I don't see how that matters very much.  Cheesy

yes, jesuitry would make sure he has wiggle room.
What do you mean by that?

Give that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff whether he is speaking infallibly or not, if you did believe as your characature of the Protestants' understanding of your belief, what would you be doing different?
There is a difference between obedience and submission. If the Pope says that the sky is green I don't have to believe that, but I would still respect his office as the Successor to St. Peter. I just might think he was having an off day that day. Tongue

Well, Protestantism is the other side of the Vatican's coin.
Protestantism is a different coin altogether.

St. John Chrysostom, for one.  Fr. Ambrose has posted the numbers and specifics here several times. 

Christ did speak Aramaic, but, except for a few words and senteneces-and this isn't one of them-all we have recorded is in Greek.  You can join the Protestants in their quest of conjecture to attempt to get beyond that fact.
You got some quotes for me?

So did Christ say or did He not say "you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church?"
Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,228



« Reply #154 on: June 06, 2011, 03:36:55 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
I have heard that in Russia Christian (Христиан) refers to Orthodoxy while other sects are more or less considered different religions. Interesting and encouraging to hear it is the same other places. Let it be our prayer that one day America will do likewise. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #155 on: June 06, 2011, 05:35:06 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
I have heard that in Russia Christian (Христиан) refers to Orthodoxy while other sects are more or less considered different religions. Interesting and encouraging to hear it is the same other places. Let it be our prayer that one day America will do likewise. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew

The catholic.com forum already does that -- with respect to Catholicism rather than Orthodox, I mean. In fact, they have a subforum called "Non-Catholic Religions".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #156 on: June 06, 2011, 05:37:42 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Alright, I can see your point. I was referring to the fact that even Protestants, who don't have a dog in that fight, will acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #157 on: June 06, 2011, 05:40:09 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church. What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #158 on: June 06, 2011, 05:43:03 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse.  

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Alright, I can see your point. I was referring to the fact that even Protestants, who don't have a dog in that fight, will acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
Your siblings?  You all have many delusions in common.  Filioque, for instance: many Protestants will fight tooth and nail to defend it, for what reason I don't know.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 05:44:24 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #159 on: June 06, 2011, 05:50:42 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #160 on: June 06, 2011, 05:52:00 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation. However, I don't think we are going to come to much more agreement than that.

But, just for fun, one of these days walk down the street and ask the first stranger you pass "Where is the nearest Catholic Church?"
And if I did so in Moscow, Bucharest, Damascus etc...., I would get the correct answer.

Btw, I recall someone of your asociations asking what was up with the palms. When I said it was palm Sunday, he protested that that was last week, and to prove it, he asked the next person to walk into the hallway (this was in the dorm).  And since that person was George Pappas, he got the correct answer.

Only ask persons who know what they are talking about.
I have heard that in Russia Christian (Христиан) refers to Orthodoxy while other sects are more or less considered different religions. Interesting and encouraging to hear it is the same other places. Let it be our prayer that one day America will do likewise. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew

The catholic.com forum already does that -- with respect to Catholicism rather than Orthodox, I mean. In fact, they have a subforum called "Non-Catholic Religions".
but they don't allow posts on the Vatican's faith posted there.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #161 on: June 06, 2011, 06:42:14 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.

It's an important distinction to me: if only the Vatican were the Catholic Church, that would mean that I weren't part of the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #162 on: June 07, 2011, 12:10:37 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.

It's an important distinction to me: if only the Vatican were the Catholic Church, that would mean that I weren't part of the Catholic Church.
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #163 on: June 07, 2011, 12:25:32 PM »

You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #164 on: June 07, 2011, 12:46:10 PM »

You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 07, 2011, 12:56:32 PM »

You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.

I was being provocative.  Not to be nasty but to point out, what I think is a fact, which is that we compare more readily in the definition and promulgation of the faith than we contrast.  Father Ambrose of NZ often leaves himself open to such comments by making it appear that there is no doctrinal authority in Orthodoxy, aside from ancient bishops in council...most of whose names we no longer remember..."we" being the laity.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #166 on: June 07, 2011, 01:06:55 PM »

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
This is exactly the position that our Church has as well, yet people consider it scandalous when it is us. When it's us it is the Magisterium "inflicting" stuff on the laity, but when it's Eastern Orthodoxy not budging on a teaching it's fine.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,114



« Reply #167 on: June 07, 2011, 01:57:10 PM »

Christ is ascended!
While I have the utmost respect for the Orthodox, calling yourselves "the Catholic Church" doesn't make it so.
I could say the same in reverse. 

So we agree on the logic of the situation.

P.S. Of course, if calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Anglicans were "the Catholic Church".
If calling oneself "the Catholic Church" did make it so than it would follow that the Vatican was "the Catholic Church," now wouldn't it?

That statement doesn't make any sense, since the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church/.
Its website says otherwise.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
What it has claimed is that all of us who are in full communion with it are, all together, the Catholic Church.
A distinction without a difference.

It's an important distinction to me: if only the Vatican were the Catholic Church, that would mean that I weren't part of the Catholic Church.
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

I realize that you believe that, but that doesn't affect my point that the Vatican has never claimed to be the Catholic Church, but rather that all of us who are in full communion with it are, together, the Catholic Church.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #168 on: June 07, 2011, 03:16:10 PM »

Christ is ascended!
The text as accepted by the Church is in Greek. You and the Protestants can argue if St. Matthew wrote it in Aramaic or Greek.
I was more just curious if there is an older copy that is in Aramaic. It doesn't matter though. The language that was spoke at the time was Aramaic, and Christ said "You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church. The meaning is clear in the original language spoken.
Oh? Did you go back in the Way Back Machine and record Him, or is this one of those "private revelations" your ecclesiastical community specializes in to "support" its "teachings"?

The inspired text is the Greek, not matter what the original language spoken.  I know you and the Protestants have had a problem with that ever since St. Jerome overturned the boundary marks the Apostles set up, something that St. Augustine criticized him for.

As I am watching EWTN as I write.  Scott Hahn and others of his kind are blathering on with an old brother, whom I take as a craddle.  Scott is making a point about the differences between "neos" and "kanaios" for "new" in Greek, and making much of Christ saying "kanaios" for "new covenant," (now they are trying to explain Vatican II's results), which makes sense only if the Greek is the authoritative text (as Aramaic doesn't make the same distinction).

The problem is that it seems this Aramaic argument is promoted by those who don't know a thing about Aramaic, e.g.
Quote
The word kepha is Aramaic for a rock. Unlike nouns in the Greek language, Aramaic nouns are void of gender.
The Biblical Basis for the Papacy By John Salza
http://books.google.com/books?id=EvQJ_i7J4CEC&pg=PA47&dq=Aramaic+rock&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Aramaic%20rock&f=false
anyone who knows anything about Aramaic can see this for the foolishness it is.

This "argument" is 100% Scholastic through and through, whether Ultramontanist or Protestant, the same sides of the coin.  That you all act as if your argument can't be made from the authentic Greek, whereas the Fathers, both Orthodox and those slipping into Ultramontanism, had no problem for centuries to argue from the text as is.  This invention of an Aramaic primacy argument (which, as the majority of Aramaic speakers remained Orthodox shows, doesn't work among the natives) as something definitive is rather novel.

Not my argument, but no, as "uno" and "una" mean the same thing. "El papa" means "the Pope."  "La papa" means "the potato."  But if you want to insist on the similiarity, I won't stop you.
How can you be sure that the Petros/Petra thing is like el papa/la papa and not uno/una?
Because, unlike those who persue this line of arguement, I know Aramaic/Syriac.

If I were to pursue such an argument, I might make more of the fact that the word "Peter" in the Greek is not definite, and "this rock" is. But that isn't necessary.  More problematic for your agenda is that the verse is recorded in St. Matthew, the Gospel associated with the Church founded by St. Peter  of Antioch, and the Gospel associated with Rome, St. Mark, records the incident but not the renaming of St. Peter.

Again, to reiterate, none of this matters because in the spoken language of Christ and the Apostles it was simply Kepha and Kepha.

So your modern "experts" have conjectured, as scripture does not tell you.  Comparison of the LXX, Targums, Peshitta and other Aramaic/Syriac translations doesn't make that rock solid for you, especially as many of the translations are at pains at distinquishing the two, including using the Greek loan "bTrws."
Peter and the rock By Chrys C. Caragounis
http://books.google.com/books?id=YZgNPsOgSjQC&pg=PA26&dq=Aramaic+rock&cd=7#v=onepage&q=Aramaic%20rock&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=YZgNPsOgSjQC&pg=PA44&dq=%22discountenance+the+Greek+as+a+proper+word-play%22&hl=en&ei=I2buTZX1C4LY0QGv34DeAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22discountenance%20the%20Greek%20as%20a%20proper%20word-play%22&f=false

Btw, according to Armaic grammar, it would have been keph and kepha.  If indeed that is what it was.

Take your a chances.   If you are going to expel evil or prevent its influence, go to someone who can do that.
My priest can do that.
Does he claim that, or are you claiming that for him?  Or does the Vatican say he has special "faculties"?


There are plenty of Protestants who know of the dogma of infallibilty as the CCC teaches it, and still reject it, with reason.
And that's their decision.
and a wise one at that.

Had it done that, the Vatican could give a list of all those infallible pronouncements.  Instead all its theologians have to read tea leaves.
We know the teachings of our Church are true.
Like Unam Sanctam? The council of Clermont? Quantum praedecessores?  The teachings of Pope John XXII on the beatific vision?

Not to mention the false teaching of the filioque.

Splitting hairs over whether any given teaching is an ex cathedra pronouncement or simply the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium doesn't seem like that crucial of a thing to know.


Maybe it irritates those on the outside, but they are already irritated with us anyway so I don't see how that matters very much.  Cheesy
Well, when your "magisterium" preaches crusades and inquisitions, and then disown their responsibility by claims that it wasn't really "church teaching," it would tend to irritate people.  But since such people are listed by the Vatican as search and destroy targets, it wouldn't matter from your perspective.

And I fully agreement: the distinction between ex cathedra and ordinary magisterium, invented about the same time 18 centuries after the Apostles, is without a difference.  Which makes it all the more suspicious why your Vatican insists on making the distinction.  but then we have the answer-
yes, jesuitry would make sure he has wiggle room.
What do you mean by that?

Give that Lumen Gentium demands submission to your supreme pontiff whether he is speaking infallibly or not, if you did believe as your characature of the Protestants' understanding of your belief, what would you be doing different?
There is a difference between obedience and submission. If the Pope says that the sky is green I don't have to believe that, but I would still respect his office as the Successor to St. Peter. I just might think he was having an off day that day. Tongue
You might as well respect the Chief R

Well, Protestantism is the other side of the Vatican's coin.
Protestantism is a different coin altogether.
You are made of the same metal, and stamped with the same scholastic imprint.

St. John Chrysostom, for one.  Fr. Ambrose has posted the numbers and specifics here several times.  

Christ did speak Aramaic, but, except for a few words and senteneces-and this isn't one of them-all we have recorded is in Greek.  You can join the Protestants in their quest of conjecture to attempt to get beyond that fact.
You got some quotes for me?
"Talitha qumi!" "Ephphatha!" "Eli, Eli, lama sabakhthani?"

You have been supplied plenty.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28604.msg451932.html#msg451932

They are not going to go away.  One of may favorites:
Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

Quote
The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.


So did Christ say or did He not say "you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church?"
We do not have St. Matthew recording Him so saying, so you cannot tell.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 03:23:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #169 on: June 07, 2011, 03:33:11 PM »

Christ is ascended!
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade.
Who are you? Human resources?

Not my job to ascertain that fact.  Just to stick to it.

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.
No, Father does not, and unless you can quote him on that, it is dishonest (surprise) of you to so assert.

I

Christ I know, and Fr. Ambrose I know, but who are you?

would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.
Not correcting the Catholic Church.  Just the Vatican.

I'd correct those so called Orthodox you depend on, but since they remainless nameless (and for all purposes, nonexistent), that is rather hard.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2011, 03:34:40 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,473



« Reply #170 on: June 07, 2011, 03:37:23 PM »

Christ is ascended!
You can have the Vatican or the Catholic Church. Until the Vatican repents, you can't be part of both.

This assertion is far and away above your pay-grade. 

Father Ambrose says Orthdox faithful do not have to assent to any Orthodox teaching that they do not agree with.  I would think that is something you might want to work on before you come correcting the Catholic Church.

Mary, I think you may be misunderstanding Fr. Ambrose, whether that is the Fr. Ambrose on this forum or not. Orthodoxy is not a cafeteria of dogma by any means. If one does not believe what the Church teaches, he is not truly a member of the Church, does not truly have the Church for his mother, and cannot have God for his Father.
don't confuse her with the facts.  She has these secret Orthodox experts who have initiated her into the mysteries of the Faith that us named Orthodox don't know.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisd