OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 07:56:51 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 6 7 8 9 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the magical thinking of papal infallibility no longer makes any sense to me  (Read 8995 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #405 on: April 02, 2013, 10:32:22 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
Logged
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #406 on: April 02, 2013, 10:39:11 PM »

So when one pope says he'll never change the creed by making gold plates of the orthodox text, and another pope changes it later, what is that?
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #407 on: April 03, 2013, 12:01:54 AM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact, you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia, and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #408 on: April 03, 2013, 12:19:53 AM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact,
To state that something is irrelevant is to state an opinion, not a fact.

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,
No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 12:23:12 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #409 on: April 03, 2013, 07:53:19 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact,
To state that something is irrelevant is to state an opinion, not a fact.

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,
No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?
correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.

Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.

Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:

    the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
    the so-called Athanasian Creed;
    several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
    the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
    St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
    Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
    the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
    the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
    the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
    the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
    the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
    the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
    Council of Florence, 1439.

Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

    First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.]
    Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; On the Incarnation 9; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, Against Eunomius V; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43, no. 9).
    Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #410 on: April 04, 2013, 01:20:11 AM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact,
To state that something is irrelevant is to state an opinion, not a fact.

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,
No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?
correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #411 on: April 04, 2013, 07:09:41 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact,
To state that something is irrelevant is to state an opinion, not a fact.

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,
No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?
correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.
can you refute anything the source mentions ?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #412 on: April 04, 2013, 07:21:54 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact,
To state that something is irrelevant is to state an opinion, not a fact.

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,
No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?
correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.
can you refute anything the source mentions ?
Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.
Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #413 on: April 04, 2013, 07:36:43 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact,
To state that something is irrelevant is to state an opinion, not a fact.

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,
No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?
correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.
can you refute anything the source mentions ?
Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.
if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #414 on: April 04, 2013, 07:46:59 PM »

Quote from: sedevacantist link=topic=50648.msg905364#msg905364 date=1364864stablish that the Church once taught something else prior to our deviation.
[/quote
what was wrong with the early church fathers mentioned in wikipedia?
1. I find Wikipedia to be a good place to start my research on any topic because it provides a good overview of the subject and where I can get more information. That said, that's really the only use I have for Wikipedia.

2. For anything more scholarly, I'm going to cite sources other than Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia articles are open to modification by the public, anyone with an agenda can make whatever changes he/she wants to any article posted there. In this particular case, I'm more likely to regard the list of patristic references given on the article you cited as mere cherry picking than if you were to cite them from a source whose scholarly authority is more broadly accepted.

To me, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed I recite every Sunday in the Divine Liturgy is the Church's first dogmatic statement of her belief in the theology of the Holy Spirit. The Creed says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, END STOP. Whereas I suppose that this language in and of itself doesn't forbid one to believe in some theory of the procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son, I would have to recognize that this theory of the double procession is nothing more than a theological opinion that I'm not bound to hold, because it's not in the Creed of our Fathers.

To insert this double procession theology into the Creed by saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, however, is an act of adding a dogmatic proclamation to the Creed of the Nicene Fathers that demonstrates a dogmatic authority I don't believe Rome ever had. I'm certainly willing to recognize Rome's primacy of authority within the Church, but only insofar as she submits herself to the even higher authority of an ecumenical council. Only an ecumenical council can modify the work of a previous ecumenical council, which Constantinople did in the Second Ecumenical Council when she added language regarding the Holy Spirit to the Creed produced in Nicea. Any bishop or pope who takes it upon himself to make any such modifications to the work of an ecumenical council puts himself outside the Church by blaspheming the supreme authority of the ecumenical councils.
it's irrelevant that the info comes from wikipedia as they are quoting the early church fathers,
Yes, I've seen that argument advanced before. "It doesn't matter that I'm cherry picking from the Fathers to prove my point of view. It's the Fathers I'm quoting, and their quotes (those that I'm using) say..."

many of which stated the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son,
You missed the point that it looks like cherry picking to me.
it's not an argument, it's fact,
To state that something is irrelevant is to state an opinion, not a fact.

you try to dismiss something by making an irrelevant claim that it's from wikipedia,
No, it's obvious that you quoted something from wikipedia. You said so yourself. And the fact that you quoted your material from wikipedia is relevant to this discussion in that the material's credibility depends on the authority of the medium quoting it. Your burden in this debate is to prove something to your audience, NOT to yourself.

and I hear that argument all the time that I'm cherry picking from the fathers or from the bible when in actuality we all have to do it unless you want to post whole chapters from the bible etc
No, we don't all have to cherry pick to prove a point. In this case, though, it appears that you're building your argument on the authority of an article from wikipedia that, considering where it's posted, appears to me as a hackneyed attempt to cherry pick select quotes that, taken out of their original contexts and placed into the new context of a wiki article, "prove" the point you're trying to make. I find this shoddy attempt at scholarship most unconvincing. So what are you going to do to make your case more cogent? Tell me that I'm a fool to dismiss the authority of your sources, or argue from sources whose authority I actually trust?
correction, I'm building my case on what some of the church fathers said on the issue, it has nothing to do with wikipedia, if wikipedia quoted a passage that you believe is not true by all means point it out instead of just dismissing everything...anyways there re plenty of other sources like the following

...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
If there's one source I hold even less authoritative on a presentation of patristic teaching than wikiepedia, it's New Advent, which in this article used select quotes from the Fathers to "prove" a modern-day Catholic apologetic that the author of this article had already predetermined before referring to the Fathers.
can you refute anything the source mentions ?
Not my burden to prove you wrong. It's your burden to prove yourself right. You haven't done so yet, and you're not going to do so as long as you continue to argue from sources I don't accept.
if you can't accept the church fathers as a source then we're done
I never said anything about the Church Fathers. I told you that I don't accept wikiepedia and New Advent as sources. When I want to read the Fathers, I will go somewhere else before I go to either of those two sites.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 07:47:13 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
sedevacantist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #415 on: April 04, 2013, 08:19:18 PM »

If you are going to play the numbers game.

RCs are truer than whatever you are, not being Orthodox or RC.

And Islam is the truest!

Hey, I am an Orthodox Christian.

Interesting disagreement. Maybe you guys need a Catholic like me to settle it for you ... you know, to return the favor of the Orthodox who've taken it upon themselves to decide sedevacantists are Catholics. Wink
you don't know what you are talking about and are not catholic, you accept a pope who kisses the koran and enters into a synagogue

who is right

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), God and the World, 2000, pp. 150-151: “This is another of the paradoxes that the New Testament sets before us.  On the one hand, their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation, but they serve in a particular way, and thereby they stand within the patience of God, in which we, too, place our trust.”

or

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man...– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

 



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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,104



« Reply #416 on: April 05, 2013, 06:22:53 AM »

I've been torn between the CC and OC for quite awhile now. I'm a convert to the CC, but I felt a strong pull to the OC even before becoming Catholic. Since then, I've struggled to make sense of it all.

I do not understand the Catholic veneration of the papal office. I hear lots of comments about how regardless of what he may have said or done or taught as Bishop that he is Pope now and they support him no matter what, because he is reserved from teaching false doctrine or he will no longer be Pope. People actually believe that God will strike him down before he would have the opportunity to promulgate something false.  Huh

I'm now starting to see the problem with declaring something ( a council) or someone ( the Pope) infallible at the outset instead of after the fact when the orthodoxy of what is declared can be confirmed or rejected.

Universal jurisdiction seems to be naturally tied to papal infallibility and creates the situation where submission to Rome is more important than orthodox belief. Hence we have a bunch of people that are considered Catholic but don't agree with Catholic teaching on many issues. it's no longer about orthodox belief it's all about being in communion with the Pope. Because once a Catholic always a Catholic.

None of this makes any sense to me and now I realize I never should have become Catholic in the first place.

I think you picked the wrong thread to post this on.

Everyone realizes that I meant that ^^ ironically right?

Melesine didn't actually post off-topic comments on a sedevacantism thread. (She started the thread. :light bulb: )
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 06:23:19 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags: That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   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 0.138 seconds with 39 queries.