OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 23, 2014, 03:29:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "...anything that had been lacking in their predecessors"  (Read 1507 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« on: June 20, 2011, 03:46:25 PM »

The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon

"...therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate.  And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City; which doctrine they declared unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy his sovereignty."

Doesn't Filioque addition look like as Roman Catholics wanted to "introduce anything that had been lacking in their predecessors"?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2011, 04:10:19 PM »

The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon

"...therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate.  And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City; which doctrine they declared unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy his sovereignty."

Doesn't Filioque addition look like as Roman Catholics wanted to "introduce anything that had been lacking in their predecessors"?
LOL. Exactly.
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
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2011, 04:23:30 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2011, 09:24:40 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie

Hi HabteSelassie.

Many different recipes are possible with the same few ingredients.

In this case, the basic ingredients are:
1. Here's our (Orthodox) position ...
2. Here's our (Catholic) position ...
3. The positions are the same.
4. The positions are not the same.

I won't try to list, or even count, the many different conversations that have grown out of them.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,207


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2011, 09:58:14 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie

POM candidate?
Logged
Shiranui117
Formerly known as "Wandering Sheep"
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: ACROD/OCA
Posts: 150


PUDDI PUDDI!


« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2011, 11:26:27 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie

POM candidate?
I certainly enjoyed it thoroughly  Grin
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,388


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2011, 12:33:32 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie
This filly-o-que is a dead topic.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2011, 12:49:53 PM »



filly okay

Doesn't look like it.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2011, 12:52:02 PM »



Funny ... earlier I was thinking that looks a little like the scene from "Office Space", with the copier replaced by a horse ... then a few minutes ago I realized that's exactly what it is.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2011, 12:56:13 PM »

Many different recipes are possible with the same few ingredients.

In this case, the basic ingredients are:
What I wanted to say: Roman Catholics often say, that they could change the Creed, because the Second Ecumenical Council did so. But in fact, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, after having read both of these Creeds, explicitly explained, that the Second Ecumenical Council didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors". It introduced the complete teaching on the Holy Spirit, because in the previous Creed there were only four words about Holy Spirit: "...And in the Holy Ghost". Whereas Filioque addition really looks so, as it "had been lacking in their predecessors".
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2011, 01:36:17 PM »

Many different recipes are possible with the same few ingredients.

In this case, the basic ingredients are:
What I wanted to say: Roman Catholics often say, that they could change the Creed, because the Second Ecumenical Council did so. But in fact, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, after having read both of these Creeds, explicitly explained, that the Second Ecumenical Council didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors". It introduced the complete teaching on the Holy Spirit, because in the previous Creed there were only four words about Holy Spirit: "...And in the Holy Ghost". Whereas Filioque addition really looks so, as it "had been lacking in their predecessors".

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,226



« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2011, 03:19:30 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie
This filly-o-que is a dead topic.
Did Fr. Philly O'Cuay pronounce the last rites?

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
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2011, 04:42:39 PM »

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.
How?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2011, 05:33:31 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie
This filly-o-que is a dead topic.
Did Fr. Philly O'Cuay pronounce the last rites?

In Christ,
Andrew
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
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2011, 05:36:17 PM »

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.
How?
You haven't, but I'll wait for PJ to argue their case.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 05:36:45 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
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 #15 on: June 21, 2011, 06:03:28 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie

Hi HabteSelassie.

Many different recipes are possible with the same few ingredients.

In this case, the basic ingredients are:
1. Here's our (Orthodox) position ...
2. Here's our (Catholic) position ...
3. The positions are the same.
4. The positions are not the same.

I won't try to list, or even count, the many different conversations that have grown out of them.

Usually #3 is satisfied by elijahmaria.
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
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 #16 on: June 21, 2011, 06:04:42 PM »

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.
How?
Because the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was a modification of the Nicene Creed which was in turn a modification of the Apostle's Creed.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2011, 06:09:26 PM »

Many different recipes are possible with the same few ingredients.

In this case, the basic ingredients are:
What I wanted to say: Roman Catholics often say, that they could change the Creed, because the Second Ecumenical Council did so. But in fact, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, after having read both of these Creeds, explicitly explained, that the Second Ecumenical Council didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors". It introduced the complete teaching on the Holy Spirit, because in the previous Creed there were only four words about Holy Spirit: "...And in the Holy Ghost". Whereas Filioque addition really looks so, as it "had been lacking in their predecessors".

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.

Clearly, "not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" doesn't mean there are no statements in the Creed of 381 that weren't in the Creed of 325.

The Creed of 381 contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 325, but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.

The Creed of Toledo contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 381 (i.e. that the eternal procession of the Spirit is from the Son as well as the Father), but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2011, 06:11:17 PM »

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.
How?
Because the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was a modification of the Nicene Creed which was in turn a modification of the Apostle's Creed.
No, it wasn't. The so called Apostles Creed had nothing (except similarity in origins) to do with the Nicene Creed.

filioque is a, heretical, modification of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.  The Constantinopolitan Creed is an Orthodox expansion of the Nicene Creed.
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
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2011, 06:14:21 PM »

Many different recipes are possible with the same few ingredients.

In this case, the basic ingredients are:
What I wanted to say: Roman Catholics often say, that they could change the Creed, because the Second Ecumenical Council did so. But in fact, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, after having read both of these Creeds, explicitly explained, that the Second Ecumenical Council didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors". It introduced the complete teaching on the Holy Spirit, because in the previous Creed there were only four words about Holy Spirit: "...And in the Holy Ghost". Whereas Filioque addition really looks so, as it "had been lacking in their predecessors".

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.

Clearly, "not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" doesn't mean there are no statements in the Creed of 381 that weren't in the Creed of 325.

The Creed of 381 contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 325, but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.

The Creed of Toledo contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 381 (i.e. that the eternal procession of the Spirit is from the Son as well as the Father), but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.
No, it was not.

The Orthodox Creed of 381 contained no heretical statements, which of course weren't in the Orthodox Creed of 325.  Toledo is a different matter.
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: 6,106



« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2011, 06:16:38 PM »

No, it wasn't. The so called Apostles Creed had nothing (except similarity in origins) to do with the Nicene Creed.

Indeed. Theories that the Apostles' Creed predates the Nicene Creed are tenuous at best.

filioque is a, heretical, modification of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

I'd think you'd know by now that saying that doesn't make it true.

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2011, 06:19:42 PM »

No, it wasn't. The so called Apostles Creed had nothing (except similarity in origins) to do with the Nicene Creed.

Indeed. Theories that the Apostles' Creed predates the Nicene Creed are tenuous at best.

filioque is a, heretical, modification of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

I'd think you'd know by now that saying that doesn't make it true.


Yes.  Saying the Truth makes it true.
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: 6,106



« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2011, 06:29:30 PM »

No, it wasn't. The so called Apostles Creed had nothing (except similarity in origins) to do with the Nicene Creed.

Indeed. Theories that the Apostles' Creed predates the Nicene Creed are tenuous at best.

filioque is a, heretical, modification of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

I'd think you'd know by now that saying that doesn't make it true.


Yes.  Saying the Truth makes it true.

No the truth is true even before you say it. You don't make it true.

That's irrelevant anyhow, since what you said isn't true.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,884


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2011, 07:43:58 PM »

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.
How?
Because the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was a modification of the Nicene Creed which was in turn a modification of the Apostle's Creed.

The Nicene Creed is a modification of the Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem.  The Apostle's Creed is a modification of the Baptismal Creed of Rome.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #24 on: June 21, 2011, 07:54:23 PM »

No, it wasn't. The so called Apostles Creed had nothing (except similarity in origins) to do with the Nicene Creed.

Indeed. Theories that the Apostles' Creed predates the Nicene Creed are tenuous at best.

filioque is a, heretical, modification of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

I'd think you'd know by now that saying that doesn't make it true.


Yes.  Saying the Truth makes it true.

No the truth is true even before you say it. You don't make it true.
Didn't even imply I did.  The Truth is true, whether I repeat it or not.

That's irrelevant anyhow, since what you said isn't true.
You saying it doesn't make it true, especially as the Church, speaking otherwise, says its true.
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
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #25 on: June 22, 2011, 01:12:39 AM »

Clearly, "not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" doesn't mean there are no statements in the Creed of 381 that weren't in the Creed of 325.

The Creed of 381 contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 325, but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.
Once again: the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit was absent at all in the Nicene Creed; for this reason the Definition of the Chalcedone Council names the Creed of 381 as the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit:
"...it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City"

...whereas the doctrine of procession of the Spirit is already explicitly present in the Creed of 381.
Don't you see the difference?

Since that the Creed of 381 is not "modification" of the previous Creed, it's just another Creed concerning different matter (the Spirit).

As we have four Gospels, that don't "modify" each other but supplement each other; and sure we cannot modify neither of them as if they were "lacking" something.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 01:12:59 AM by Vadim » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #26 on: June 22, 2011, 08:57:54 AM »

Clearly, "not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" doesn't mean there are no statements in the Creed of 381 that weren't in the Creed of 325.

The Creed of 381 contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 325, but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.
Once again: the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit was absent at all in the Nicene Creed; for this reason the Definition of the Chalcedone Council names the Creed of 381 as the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit:
"...it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City"

...whereas the doctrine of procession of the Spirit is already explicitly present in the Creed of 381.
Don't you see the difference?

Since that the Creed of 381 is not "modification" of the previous Creed, it's just another Creed concerning different matter (the Spirit).

As we have four Gospels, that don't "modify" each other but supplement each other; and sure we cannot modify neither of them as if they were "lacking" something.

Although you can certainly find, if you look (and it's especially easy with the internet), individual Catholics who think of the Creed of Toledo as a replacement for the Creed of 381, the more official Catholic position is that the Creed of Toledo is simply another (legitimate) creed.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2011, 11:23:15 AM »


Usually #3 is satisfied by elijahmaria.

Actually, no.  I do not say that Orthodox and Catholic are the same on all counts.  Far from it!...but we are not so far apart in substantive faith to justify the sin of schism continuing

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2011, 11:25:17 AM »

I think you've inadvertently supported the Catholic position.
How?
Because the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed was a modification of the Nicene Creed which was in turn a modification of the Apostle's Creed.

The Nicene Creed is a modification of the Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem.  The Apostle's Creed is a modification of the Baptismal Creed of Rome.

Ha!! So happy to see someone note this!!  thankee... Cheesy
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2011, 11:45:24 AM »


Usually #3 is satisfied by elijahmaria.

Actually, no.  I do not say that Orthodox and Catholic are the same on all counts.  Far from it!...but we are not so far apart in substantive faith to justify the sin of schism continuing

Mary

I don't think WetCatechumen was suggesting that the sin of schism is justified.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,389



« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2011, 12:25:48 PM »

Clearly, "not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" doesn't mean there are no statements in the Creed of 381 that weren't in the Creed of 325.

The Creed of 381 contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 325, but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.
Once again: the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit was absent at all in the Nicene Creed; for this reason the Definition of the Chalcedone Council names the Creed of 381 as the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit:
"...it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City"

...whereas the doctrine of procession of the Spirit is already explicitly present in the Creed of 381.
Don't you see the difference?

Since that the Creed of 381 is not "modification" of the previous Creed, it's just another Creed concerning different matter (the Spirit).

As we have four Gospels, that don't "modify" each other but supplement each other; and sure we cannot modify neither of them as if they were "lacking" something.

Although you can certainly find, if you look (and it's especially easy with the internet), individual Catholics who think of the Creed of Toledo as a replacement for the Creed of 381, the more official Catholic position is that the Creed of Toledo is simply another (legitimate) creed.
But it's not. It claims to be the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed, and it isn't.
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
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2011, 12:33:47 PM »

The acts of Toledo Councils were corrupted in places concerning procession of the Holy Spirit:

Vid. Zoernicaw. de process. Spir. S. tract. III, p. 288 - 289.

As were the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council corrupted, see Hefele on the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 12:34:08 PM by Vadim » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #32 on: June 22, 2011, 01:26:49 PM »

Clearly, "not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" doesn't mean there are no statements in the Creed of 381 that weren't in the Creed of 325.

The Creed of 381 contained a statement that wasn't in the Creed of 325, but it didn't introduce "anything that had been lacking in their predecessors" because the statement in question was already part of the deposit of faith.
Once again: the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit was absent at all in the Nicene Creed; for this reason the Definition of the Chalcedone Council names the Creed of 381 as the doctrine concerning the substance of the Spirit:
"...it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City"

...whereas the doctrine of procession of the Spirit is already explicitly present in the Creed of 381.
Don't you see the difference?

Since that the Creed of 381 is not "modification" of the previous Creed, it's just another Creed concerning different matter (the Spirit).

As we have four Gospels, that don't "modify" each other but supplement each other; and sure we cannot modify neither of them as if they were "lacking" something.

Although you can certainly find, if you look (and it's especially easy with the internet), individual Catholics who think of the Creed of Toledo as a replacement for the Creed of 381, the more official Catholic position is that the Creed of Toledo is simply another (legitimate) creed.
But it's not. It claims to be the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed, and it isn't.

It claims that about itself?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Volnutt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic/Universalist
Posts: 3,107


« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2011, 01:59:11 PM »

Nicea=Ecumenical Council
Constantinople=Ecumenical Council
Toledo=Synod of only Western bishops

It doesn't matter whether the Filioque is implied in pre-Toledo beliefs, they simply did not have the authora-tay to amend the Creed (or make a new, binding one).
Logged
Vadim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Posts: 48


Bishop Atanasije Jevtic on the photograph


« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2011, 01:56:25 AM »

Although you can certainly find, if you look (and it's especially easy with the internet), individual Catholics who think of the Creed of Toledo as a replacement for the Creed of 381, the more official Catholic position is that the Creed of Toledo is simply another (legitimate) creed.
The Symbol of Toledo is indeed another creed; it is not equal to the Constantinople Creed plus Filioque addition: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TOLEDO.HTM

Whereas the Constantinople Creed plus Filioque addition is not "simply another (legitimate) creed". If it was such, it would have had its own name, and in some official documents of the RCC it would have been read along with Nicene Creed and Constantinople Creed, under some third, specific name. In the same way as Chalcedon Council read both Creeds:

The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon:

"The Creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nice.

We believe in one God, etc.

Item, the Creed of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who were assembled at Constantinople.

We believe in one God, etc."

And also both these Creeds were read in the Definition of Faith of the Sixths Ecumenical Council.

Can you find any document where Constantinople Creed was read without addition; and immediately after that Constantinople Creed with the addition was read? Or where all the three Creeds were read beginning with the Nicene Creed.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 02:00:37 AM by Vadim » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,106



« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2011, 08:29:25 AM »


Hmm. I have to admit that I've not seen that before. I'll give it some thought.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: filioque 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.139 seconds with 63 queries.