OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 01:16:08 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: De Gloria Olivae and the next Pope.  (Read 28530 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #135 on: April 22, 2005, 04:02:47 AM »

Quote
I'm all for going to war against islamo-fascist countries with opressive regimes that treat women like dogs and other barbaric behavior.

I actually can't believe my eyes right now!!!

What kind of prejudice is this against Islamic Countries? I too am against fascist regimes and totalitarian theocratic governments, but that gives the North Atlantic Alliance no excuse to openly invade a country and bring war to people who never asked for.

Quote
I hope we get a chance to drop bombs on Iran before they do it to us with all those nuclear weapons they are trying to build.

Don't tell me you actually believe no Islamic country has nuclear weapons right now, excluding those who openly admit it? The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in scientists from all over USSR flooding the nearby countries, in order to sell their knowledge and equipment.

Quote
Imagine a nuke in the hands of 13th century barbarians and what kind of disaster that would be for the whole world. Also, I wouldn't mind turning Turkey into a parking lot seeing what they do to young girls when their fathers aren't able to pay off thier debts.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons right now, and nothing terrible has happened. Same for India. And the people from both countries are largely below the basic standards of what we call a good life.

Quote
If the islamic countries dropped off the face of the earth tommorow that would be one big step forward for the rest of mankind. 

This is no attitude towards islamic countries.
There are two Palaestinian students in my university, who came all the way from Palaestine in search of a better future, just in case they might be able to overthrow the oppressing regime of the Jews in their country, yet I have never heard them complain not even once: "I just wish all the Jews would burn alive and leave us be."

Quote
Anyway, what the hell have they contributed to mankind since the 7th century?

Actually, the Arabic civilisation was far greater than the European Medieval in the 10th century (excluding Byzantium). You can certainly thank them for Mathematics, Algebra, Astronomy, navigation, the preservation of ancient Greek manuscripts, and many other things...


Quote
Kizzy.....about Islam.....ther will be a war......and Islam will not be anymore.(that rhymes Smiley  )
And many will be babtised and many killed.....Saint Kosmas O Aitolos

St. Bernadette of the Roman Catholic Church prophesised that all Muslims will become Christians in the first years of the new millenium.
St Kosmas Aitolos said that out of the Turks 1/3 will be killed, 1/3 will be baptised and 1/3 will leave for "Red Appletree", which tends to be translated the far corner of Middle East...

If it is the Will of the Lord, may it happen...
Logged

lroman
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #136 on: April 22, 2005, 04:14:32 AM »

st. malachy received the vision of the future, he saw all the popes from then until the one we are at now plus one. "the glory of the olive" is malachy's phrase for the new pope. before conclave alot of talk about this was in the air. some said he would be jewish or love the jews because the olive branch is peace but also the icon for judisim. after pope benedict was elected and chose his name after st. benedict who started the olivetans an organization in the catholic church who built a chapel on mt. olivet. where both catholics and jews believe that jesus will return to. pope benedict  is related with the word "olive" in alot of ways.

another prophecy came from the olivetans about 400 years ago, they said that "before the end of time one of our own will be pope". well i guess they were right.  

back to malachy.. malachy didn't write a phrase for the last pope, the phrase peter the roman was added in the mid 1800's it was never in his writings before then. also malachy didnt say if the end of the world would follow right after "the glory of the olive" pope. he just said from now(st malachys time)  till the olive pope and then there will be another who will be the end.

malachy said this about the last pope "In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End." but peter the roman was added later and to me it looks like he is going to try to help and but can't do anything about it because God is greater than any man.

let's talk about the city of seven hills...cough rome, right? well actually there is three known as the 7 hilled city. and guess what each one is in the heart of the three largest religions in the world. there is alot of things that click together about the end of the world but spend more time enjoying what you have now not what is to come
« Last Edit: April 22, 2005, 04:17:59 AM by lroman » Logged

NULL
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #137 on: April 22, 2005, 04:27:13 AM »

st. malachy received the vision of the future, he saw all the popes from then until the one we are at now plus one.  "the glory of the olive" is malachy's phrase for the new pope.  before conclave alot of talk about this was in the air.  some said he would be jewish or love the jews because the olive branch is peace but also the icon for judisim.  after pope benedict was elected and chose his name after st. benedict who started the olivetans an organization in the catholic church who built a chapel on mt. olivet.  where both catholics and jews believe that jesus will return to.  pope benedict  is related with the word "olive" in alot of ways.

another prophecy came from the olivetans about 400 years ago, they said that "before the end of time one of our own will be pope".  well i guess they were right.   

back to malachy.. malachy didn't write a phrase for the last pope, the phrase peter the roman was added in the mid 1800's  it was never in his writings before then.  also malachy didnt say if the end of the world would follow right after "the glory of the olive" pope.  he just said from now(st malachys time)  till the olive pope and then there will be another who will be the end. 

malachy said this about the last pope "In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End."  but peter the roman was added later and to me it looks like he is going to try to help and but can't do anything about it because God is greater than any man.

let's talk about  the city of seven hills...cough rome, right?  well actually there is three known as the 7 hilled city.  and guess what each one is in the heart of the three largest religions in the world.  there is alot of things that click together about the end of the world but spend more time enjoying what you have now not what is to come

You're actually saying that St. Malachy saw Gloria De Olivae and then one more who he couldn't see, or is it how I understood it? Peter the Roman was certainly added later, but this does not mean that St. Benedict was wrong in predicting the last Pope will be from his ranks...

I don't think Benedict XVI is the last Pope: I believe he is the last Pope before the churches unite...
Logged

eleni
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 155



« Reply #138 on: April 22, 2005, 05:12:02 AM »

st. malachy received the vision of the future, he saw all the popes from then until the one we are at now plus one.  "the glory of the olive" is malachy's phrase for the new pope.  before conclave alot of talk about this was in the air.  some said he would be jewish or love the jews because the olive branch is peace but also the icon for judisim.  after pope benedict was elected and chose his name after st. benedict who started the olivetans an organization in the catholic church who built a chapel on mt. olivet.  where both catholics and jews believe that jesus will return to.  pope benedict  is related with the word "olive" in alot of ways.

another prophecy came from the olivetans about 400 years ago, they said that "before the end of time one of our own will be pope".  well i guess they were right.   

back to malachy.. malachy didn't write a phrase for the last pope, the phrase peter the roman was added in the mid 1800's  it was never in his writings before then.  also malachy didnt say if the end of the world would follow right after "the glory of the olive" pope.  he just said from now(st malachys time)  till the olive pope and then there will be another who will be the end. 

malachy said this about the last pope "In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End."  but peter the roman was added later and to me it looks like he is going to try to help and but can't do anything about it because God is greater than any man.

let's talk about  the city of seven hills...cough rome, right?  well actually there is three known as the 7 hilled city.  and guess what each one is in the heart of the three largest religions in the world.  there is alot of things that click together about the end of the world but spend more time enjoying what you have now not what is to come

City of the seven hills........

You are talking about Constantinople aren't you?
Well, yes.......it becomes the third Rome...
First we had Rome....
Then it was Russia....
Then it becomes Constantinople.........where it all began..
Glory Be to God..
helen...
Logged

A Prudent man foresees evil and hides himself;
The simple pass on and are punished.
-Proverbs27:12-
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #139 on: April 22, 2005, 08:36:42 AM »

My husband came from a catholic family, and I from protestant one. I noticed that his bible is packed full of information; About 20 more books in the bible than that of my king James bible, that has only a small token of 66 books in all. This leads me to believe, that the protestant churches were trying very hard to cover information that they didn't want to get out into the public, in fear that they would loose control of each congragation.

ARGGGGH!

Time for some Bible Facts:

  • Your King James bible is incomplete. The original version translated all of the books that are in the Vulgate (though not from the Vulgate).
  • The reason why the "extra" books were ever treated differently is that they do not exist in Hebrew. They are taken from the ancient Greek translation know as the Septuagint (typically abbreviated LXX).
  • The fact that these books don't exist in Hebrew cast doubt in the mind of some Protestants as to whether they were really legitimate scripture. That is why the bible societies stopped publishing them in the late 1800s.
  • Anglican churches do regonize them as scripture, but of a lesser status, and there is at least one Sunday reading from them every year.

Everything is not a conspiracy. Find yourself an RSV Common Bible and everything will be fine.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,405



« Reply #140 on: April 22, 2005, 05:24:28 PM »

I'm all for going to war against islamo-fascist countries with opressive regimes that treat women like dogs and other barbaric behavior. I hope we get a chance to drop bombs on Iran before they do it to us

Drop bombs on all of the women and children who also happen to live in that country?  That's better?!??  Nacho,  those aren't faceless "Bad Guy" countries.  There are Real Human Beings in them by the millions. 

aaarrrrghghhhhh.

Quote
. If the islamic countries dropped off the face of the earth tommorow that would be one big step forward for the rest of mankind. Anyway, what the hell have they contributed to mankind since the 7th century?

Let's see.  For a number of centuries there were contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences.  After a surge in a sort of hardline Islam this died off.  Avicenna and Averroes were two of the most famous.

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
raluise
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #141 on: April 22, 2005, 06:09:04 PM »

Just to add to the scripture history, the Greek Septuagint was used in the early church.  Many believe that St. Paul himself used this canon of scripture, due to his Greek connections and some quotations found in his writings that might indicate its use.  As with many other things in the church, the canon of scripture was established at more than one council - notably the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397.  Both councils acknowledged the Septuagint as the old testament canon of scripture. These books were in widespread use by many Jews and all early Christians.  The inspiration of the non-Hebrew books wasn't questioned until the Protestant reformation, partly because Macabbees backed up prayer for the dead.  This didn't fit with Protestant revisionist Christianity - the old "don't give me the facts, my mind is made up" routine.  What their "reformation" led to was really "deformation".  Last I heard, we had about 24,000 different protestant denominations, most of whom can't agree on anything except their ridiculous misinterpretation of scripture known as the "rapture".  They also wanted to reject "dogma" and leave scripture to personal interpretation. Just dare to question the "rapture" nonsense, however, and they'll act like you're the demon incarnate for questioning their "dogma".

As I've stated before, Orthodoxy holds the only hope for the future of Christianity - at least the fullness of Christianity as it was in the early church.
Logged

NULL
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,420


« Reply #142 on: April 22, 2005, 07:11:51 PM »


[li]The reason why the "extra" books were ever treated differently is that they do not exist in Hebrew. They are taken from the ancient Greek translation know as the Septuagint (typically abbreviated LXX).[/li][li]The fact that these books don't exist in Hebrew cast doubt in the mind of some Protestants as to whether they were really legitimate scripture. That is why the bible societies stopped publishing them in the late 1800s.[/li][/list]
I think something also very important that is missing is WHY the missing books in Hebrew were excluded.  I read the webpage listing some "research" that some relatives "Bible Church" did, stating they follow the OT list of books ennumberated in the Council of Jamnia.  This tidbit is just silly.  They didn't happen to realize that it was a JEWISH Rabbinical Council (Jamnia) that decided to exlude the books since many of these "Apocryphal" books were recommended reading for new CHRISTIAN catechumens.  Evangelicals....I tell ya...

Everything is not a conspiracy. Find yourself an RSV Common Bible and everything will be fine.


Let's not get ahead of ourselves know - "better" is not utopia.
Logged
Laurie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #143 on: April 23, 2005, 02:07:11 AM »

I understand that everything isn't a conspricy and somethings are the way they are for reasons that humanity may or may not have caused. None the less, I will keep an open mind that there are holy scripture out there that haven't been accounted for. I'll  hope that some day I will have the honour of reading them.
Logged
Hadel
IN CHRIST
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Jerusalem
Posts: 275


Jesus Christ Our Lord, King of Kings


« Reply #144 on: April 23, 2005, 02:30:15 AM »

Ok, I was taught from my Lord, God, Jesus of the following:

"Love thy Enemy" and not "Hate thy Enemy and bomb them..."

"Turn the other cheek" and not "Hit the cheeks with bombs..."

Remember, to be a True Christian in Christ is to Love all and pray for all... keep the radical beliefs to yourself... I leave judgement to God and I leave change in Man to God... I have seen radical Christians(Catholic, Orthodox, Baptists etc...), Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, & Mormons... we all have our ego centric beliefs that God is only for us and no one else; if you don't follow our beliefs then "you will go to hell" some actually think... in the end, you and no one else may judge me, but God our Eternal and In Christ may judge me.

Walk with God and not radical beliefs...
Hadel
Logged

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #145 on: April 23, 2005, 02:42:41 AM »

  Last I heard, we had about 24,000 different protestant denominations, most of whom can't agree on anything except their ridiculous misinterpretation of scripture known as the "rapture". They also wanted to reject "dogma" and leave scripture to personal interpretation. Just dare to question the "rapture" nonsense, however, and they'll act like you're the demon incarnate for questioning their "dogma".


Ain't it 'da truth!

I realize that many non-Orthodox take great offense when we state often "only Orthodox are Christians". I understand their discomfort because we should just state, at the most extreme, the we know we're Christians (and poor ones at that) and do not know IF they are are not.
But to my thinking it's this whole 'rapture' thing that brings out my dim view of their faith. It seems so very foreign. It seems, besides being the relatively modern error that it is, an attempt to make Christians (and some of them only) better, superior to other Christians, even those in their own church. We Orthodox know better, our Faith is True even though we ourselves are dismal sinners.
I do not doubt that this one thing is causing Protestant inroads to be made in both Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic flocks.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2005, 02:47:17 AM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

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

Posts: 6,405



« Reply #146 on: April 23, 2005, 09:37:39 AM »

Last I heard, we had about 24,000 different protestant denominations, most of whom can't agree on anything except their ridiculous misinterpretation of scripture known as the "rapture".

Well, at least the number is lower then the last time someone quoted it. :- Do you recall where you read this and what it was based on? If it's the Barrett Numbers, then your source has got it wrong. The number Barrett gives is for *all* Christian denominatoins/groups/jurisdictions not just Protestant and the method is counting each group in a country (the different members of the Anglican Communion) or ethnic group (Greek, Russian, etc) as individual groups. So the "can't agree" charge is not correct, either.

And as to "can't agree on anything" I would submit that most of the groups *do* agree on things like: 1 God, 3 Persons in the trinity, that sort of thing. Most of the protestant juridictions and churchs I am familiar with don't go on or teach about the "Rapture" much if at all.

May I ask just how much experience you have had with any Protestant churches and if so, which ones? The ones that may be heard on the radio are possibly ummm outside the main stream of belief. One should not tar all with the deeds of one or two, maybe?

Quote
They also wanted to reject "dogma" and leave scripture to personal interpretation. Just dare to question the "rapture" nonsense, however, and they'll act like you're the demon incarnate for questioning their "dogma".

Sounds like you may have run into a fringe. It is not fair to say that *all* are something because of the actions of a small segment.

Just to reiterate:  There is no one monolithic blob of "Protestantism".

Ebor
« Last Edit: April 23, 2005, 09:40:26 AM by Ebor » Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #147 on: April 23, 2005, 12:25:53 PM »

Well, at least the number is lower then the last time someone quoted it.  :-  Do you recall where you read this and what it was based on?  If it's the Barrett Numbers, then your source has got it wrong.  The number Barrett gives is for *all* Christian denominatoins/groups/jurisdictions not just Protestant and the method is counting each group in a country (the different members of the Anglican Communion)  or ethnic group (Greek, Russian, etc) as individual groups.  So the "can't agree" charge is not correct, either.

Even if you account for all the national Orthodox Churches and take into consideration the consitutent members of the Anglican Communion, you're still not going to make a sizeable dent in that 24,000 number.  Protestant denominations are still going to make up the bulk of that number.  I will concede, however, that the vast majority of Protestants fall into a relatively small group of large mainline denominations.  It's the Evangelical and Charismatic fringe, with denominations that number only a few congregations, that ratchet up the total.

Just to reiterate:  There is no one monolithic blob of "Protestantism".

I dunno.  I always thought "chaos" summed up that blob pretty well.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #148 on: April 23, 2005, 03:42:23 PM »

Well, at least the number is lower then the last time someone quoted it.  :-  Do you recall where you read this and what it was based on?  If it's the Barrett Numbers, then your source has got it wrong.  The number Barrett gives is for *all* Christian denominatoins/groups/jurisdictions not just Protestant and the method is counting each group in a country (the different members of the Anglican Communion)  or ethnic group (Greek, Russian, etc) as individual groups.  So the "can't agree" charge is not correct, either.

It is idiotic to consider the Russian Church a different denomination from the Greek Church: The Church is the same, whether it is in Greece, or in Russia, or in Serbia, or Bulgaria or Romania, or wherever else. Orthodox Christianity is the same, it's just the persons leading the hierarchy that are different. Other than that, the Church is the same (with slight non-dogmatical differences).

I guess Barrett counts the Church of Crete (Archdiocese) as a different denomination from the Church of Athens (autocephalous Archdiocese)? If so, he's probably trying to make the numbers look much bigger than in reality.
Logged

raluise
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #149 on: April 25, 2005, 01:14:31 PM »

I've been enjoying this thread quite a bit. Someone questioned my numbers when I said there were 24,000 different Protestant Christian denominations, claiming that the Barrett numbers separate individual religious groups, even though they might be part of a large denomination (e.g., separating Russian and Greek Orthodox). Actually, Barrett clearly states in the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions" that there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations.

So, I apologize, it wasn't quite 24,000. It is, however, approximately 20,000, give or take one or two thousand. The point here is that the unified church as it existed in the first centuries is shattered. When the pope exerted his supposed authority over everyone, especially from the 1100s on, the church began fracturing. He exerted authority that nobody in the early church believed he had - even many popes didn't believe in a papacy with the kind of authority and "infallibility" that the RC Church believes today. A quick reading of Pope St. Gregory and Pope St. Leo's sermons on the "keys of the Kingdom" scripture bears witness to the fact that they believed that the authority Jesus gave to Peter was extended to all of the apostles after the resurrection. The very fact that the church had councils to resolve important issues bears witness to the fact that nobody believed in the type of authority now ascribed to the pope by the RC Church. If they had believed in that type of authority, councils would have been unnecessary - even the Acts of the Apostles bears witness to the authority vested in a council - not one man.

My point is that it's as if a huge branch of the tree of the church broke off. Initially, this was the break off of Roman Catholicism. The protestant revolt was a direct response to this insistence on papal authority. They then broke from the RC Church and have become numerous Christian sects. In my estimation, the branch that broke off rotted and crumbled over the centuries into multiple denominations.

Someone also took offense at my claim that these myriad of denominations can't agree on anything. While I agree that it's nice that they believe in one God, three persons, that belief is not the sum total of Christian belief or practice. My point in all of this is that Scripture is not the sole source of revelation - Scripture and Tradition are. There are about 20,000 groups because somebody didn't agree with somebody else, and they formed their own versions of Christianity that fit their understanding of scripture. In the Church that Christ established, councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, clarified articles of belief and scripture in order to maintain the unity that Christ willed for His Church. Insistence on papal authority and subsequent protestant revolt has completely ruptured that unity.

I truly hope that the church will one day reunite, and I think this current pope is sincere when he says he wants unity. If he expects that unity to be with a RC understanding, however, it will never happen - even if I have to be the last Orthodox holdout!
Logged

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

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


« Reply #150 on: April 25, 2005, 01:41:59 PM »


I truly hope that the church will one day reunite, and I think this current pope is sincere when he says he wants unity.  If he expects that unity to be with a RC understanding, however, it will never happen - even if I have to be the last Orthodox holdout!

I agree that he appears sincere, but his "one church, one shepherd" comment of this past weekend might need some further explanations.
Don't worry, as long as there is ONE Orthodox bishop, you won't be alone.
Logged

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

Posts: 4


« Reply #151 on: April 25, 2005, 06:35:52 PM »

Quote
Someone also took offense at my claim that these myriad of denominations can't agree on anything. While I agree that it's nice that they believe in one God, three persons, that belief is not the sum total of Christian belief or practice. My point in all of this is that Scripture is not the sole source of revelation - Scripture and Tradition are. There are about 20,000 groups because somebody didn't agree with somebody else, and they formed their own versions of Christianity that fit their understanding of scripture.

And what Tradition, exactly. do you suppose we should prescribe? You are acting as though there is actually total solidarity in the Churches, but there is not. That much, I would hope, is obvious. There are more Protestant denominations because there are fewer bad connotations for them for splitting off from a group. The fact that for larger, orlder Churches there is a sense of taboo associated with division is what keeps it officially together. I think you would find many members of any Church to be in disagreement over many things. That's certainly my experience. I suspect that we all have a different "version" of Christianity by your definition!
« Last Edit: April 25, 2005, 06:37:50 PM by Phyltre » Logged

NULL
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,405



« Reply #152 on: April 25, 2005, 11:48:33 PM »

It is idiotic to consider the Russian Church a different denomination from the Greek Church: The Church is the same, whether it is in Greece, or in Russia, or in Serbia, or Bulgaria or Romania, or wherever else. Orthodox Christianity is the same, it's just the persons leading the hierarchy that are different. Other than that, the Church is the same (with slight non-dogmatical differences).

I guess Barrett counts the Church of Crete (Archdiocese) as a different denomination from the Church of Athens (autocephalous Archdiocese)? If so, he's probably trying to make the numbers look much bigger than in reality.

Do you know Barrett's criteria for his data? He was counting individual organizations, and Churches in different countries.  Thus each member of the Anglican Communion was counted as a seperate body; they are not broken from any other due to any doctrine, they are the Anglican Church in those places. Similarly with the RC church, with each country that has an RC presence being counted.   Rather then guessing, one might consult Barrett to see how Crete and Athens were counted.  It's a 2 volume massive work that might be found in a large library with a good reference section.  Here we found it in Enoch-Pratt in Baltimore.

If you do not want his methodology to be used for *your* jurisdictions/groups, it would seem that you should not use it then against others

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #153 on: April 26, 2005, 08:45:00 AM »

It is idiotic to consider the Russian Church a different denomination from the Greek Church[.]

No, it isn't. "Denomination" has several meanings, and one of them refers to different units of church polity. The Greek and Russian churches are autonomous and therefore are different denominations in this sense-- and that is the sense that Barrett is using.

Quote
I guess Barrett counts the Church of Crete (Archdiocese) as a different denomination from the Church of Athens (autocephalous Archdiocese)?

I don't know; why don't you go and look for yourself?

Quote
If so, he's probably trying to make the numbers look much bigger than in reality.

I don't know about "trying"; I don't know that there's any malice involved. I do think that his methodology inflates the numbers, however.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #154 on: April 26, 2005, 10:33:33 AM »

I've actually looked at Barrett's numbers, something I doubt very many others have.

Understand that he counts groups in six categories: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal. The latter two categories both contain bodies that some might lump into any of the other four groups. "Protestant" contains the bodies that believe in organization: Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and various congregational conferences etc. "Independent" contains both bodies that don't believe in organization and certain splinters from the other groups. For some reason, Barrett tends to count Anglican splinters as "Independent" and Orthodox splinters as "Orthodox".

The Anglican and Orthodox numbers are very similar, except that the Orthodox numbers reflect the problem of overlapping jurisdiction. But-- when the "Protestants" are split out into the major traditions, they also resemble the Orthodox. How many major traditions are there? It's a little hard to say: I'd guess less than twenty, maybe less than ten.

What drives the numbers up are the independents and marginals. But since these are groups that mostly don't believe in organization, it isn't surprising that their numbers are very large, and it isn't legitimate to attribute their numbers to the other bodies that are organized. If it comes to that, one can go straight back to Chalcedon, if not earlier. And it's simply not true to attribute all their divisions to disagreement; that's more a property of groups like Orthodox who are big on anathematizing.

Historically the major protestant groups have united into one big group in each country, plus various small to tiny dissenting gorups. Orthodoxy isn't following this pattern because of political resistance to elimination of overlapping jurisdiction among immigrant churches.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #155 on: April 26, 2005, 11:02:45 AM »

I've actually looked at Barrett's numbers, something I doubt very many others have.

Understand that he counts groups in six categories: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Independent, and Marginal. The latter two categories both contain bodies that some might lump into any of the other four groups. "Protestant" contains the bodies that believe in organization: Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and various congregational conferences etc. "Independent" contains both bodies that don't believe in organization and certain splinters from the other groups. For some reason, Barrett tends to count Anglican splinters as "Independent" and Orthodox splinters as "Orthodox".

The Anglican and Orthodox numbers are very similar, except that the Orthodox numbers reflect the problem of overlapping jurisdiction. But-- when the "Protestants" are split out into the major traditions, they also resemble the Orthodox. How many major traditions are there? It's a little hard to say: I'd guess less than twenty, maybe less than ten.

What drives the numbers up are the independents and marginals. But since these are groups that mostly don't believe in organization, it isn't surprising that their numbers are very large, and it isn't legitimate to attribute their numbers to the other bodies that are organized. If it comes to that, one can go straight back to Chalcedon, if not earlier. And it's simply not true to attribute all their divisions to disagreement; that's more a property of groups like Orthodox who are big on anathematizing.

Historically the major protestant groups have united into one big group in each country, plus various small to tiny dissenting gorups. Orthodoxy isn't following this pattern because of political resistance to elimination of overlapping jurisdiction among immigrant churches.


Darn it, didn't I say that about five posts back or so???  :'(
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #156 on: April 26, 2005, 01:33:06 PM »

Well, not exactly.

The more important point is that the image of protestantism breaking up into 22,000 pieces due to fractiousness is simply false.
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #157 on: April 26, 2005, 03:05:11 PM »

Just as a note to the "Protestant" discussion and mainline vs. fringe groups:
While in the process of converting I read Matthew Gallatin's book (Drinking from Shallow Wells? I can't quite recall it's title and I may have his name slightly wrong; it's published by Concilair Press (again, I think!). What I am sure of is that the protestantism he describes converting from was all but un-recognizable to me - it sounded like a series of cults, what he had been involved in before converting.
On the other hand...
I attended mainline Presbyterian Churches that had written confessions of faith (the Westminster Confession, and the Westminster Longer and Shorter Catechisms); there were also books of church order (sort of like cannons) and service books for weddings, baptisms, funerals, etc. All Protestants do not fly by the seat of their pants or go by the whims of the senior pastor. Even in our personal Bible reading we were warned against subjective personalized interpretations and to always be guided by the confessions of the church. We were taught Calvin's view that in communion we feed upon Christ - not corporially, but spiritually. It was not just a remembrance, it was a definite feeding upon Christ and entering upon mystical communion with him. So many "reformed church fathers" were quoted and referred to again and again (Calvin, Knox, Baxter, Edwards, the "Princeton Fathers" - the Hodges, Warfield, more recent theologians such as Kuyper, Van Til, Murray) - these were like venerated saints. Baptism was taught as a covenant-making sacrament whereby we were grafted into God's family and made members of his eternal kingdom, the church, as well as a personal spiritual death and resurrection. There was an ecclesiology, theology and small-case orthodoxy present. Not like these whacko fringe groups that should be called cults!

My Presbyterian/Protestant/Reformed heritage I now know is deficient. But for being formed in an historical vacuum and in reaction to a (at that time) very corrupt and worldly Roman Catholic Church, Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Knox and company didn't do such a bad job. They were probably only vaguely aware of the Chuch in the East. I like to joke (but it may be at least partially true) that if the reformers only had had the internet they would have all become Orthodox!

Anyway...
It wasn't all that great a stretch for me to become Orthdox. Some Protestatn groups are NOT that far off from Orthodoxy. Why do you think so many of us have converted?
 
I didn't have to overcome a legion of un-orthodox (again, in the small case sense) heresies* to become Orthodox; to the contrary I was given the orthodox theological foundation to want to become Orthodox.
*The hereisies I refer to in some of these cult protestant groups I mean with a capital H; genuinely pagan heresies like the health and wealth, name it and claim it pentecostalisms or the near unitarian or at best modalist thinking of fringe evangelical groups; or charasmatics that refer to the Holy spirit as "it" etc.)

All it took for me was to identify two issues: apostolic succession and the real (physical) presence of Christ in the eucharist. Answer those one way and your are a Protestant (in the protestant with a brain sense, not the cult mentality sense); answer them in another way and you are Orthodox. Having been given a theological foundation for examinig and answering those questions is a tribute to my Presbyterian background. Fortunately for me that Presbyterian background occurred in evangelical-leaning, conservative, Bible-believing churches (rather than liberal, social gospel, liberation or feminist theology mainline churches).
Once I became convinced of those two things (which took about a month, but which in my heart I know I accepted almost immediately upon reading about Orthodoxy - At the Corner of East and Now (Mathewes-Green) - and even before attending my first liturgy, which really sealed it for me) everything else fell into place - Mary, icons, saints, prayers for the departed. Those two questions were D-day - my conversion was an assured event after answering those two questions. I could have converted in the first six weeks!
« Last Edit: April 26, 2005, 03:10:44 PM by BrotherAidan » Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 746



« Reply #158 on: April 26, 2005, 04:17:56 PM »

The "splintering" of Protestantism is more than organizational, particularly during the last 50 years. Within some Protestant denominations there is often a bewildering variety of doctrinal beliefs, so that it would be difficult to perceive a unity of faith within them. For example, these days a conservative Presbyterian and a conservative Methodist are probably closer to each other in their beliefs than they are to their liberal co-religionists.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #159 on: April 26, 2005, 04:48:43 PM »

The "splintering" of Protestantism is more than organizational, particularly during the last 50 years. Within some Protestant denominations there is often a bewildering variety of doctrinal beliefs, so that it would be difficult to perceive a unity of faith within them. For example, these days a conservative Presbyterian and a conservative Methodist are probably closer to each other in their beliefs than they are to their liberal co-religionists.

Maybe they are (though I think that's at least questionable) but it's certainly the case that traditionalist Presbyterian bodies are more different from the traditionalist Methodist bodies than the mainline (and therefore "liberal") UMC and PCUSA are from each other. Traditionalist groups are (among other things) about differentiation and the separation that implies; mainline groups are by their nature more diverse.

That's true in every organized tradition, and thus every tradition has its traditionalist schisms. But in every case but the Lutherans (where the LCMS has about 1/5 of the lutherans in the USA), the traditionalist septs are tiny in comparison the the main bodies. And now we seem to be swinging back and forth between condemnig schism per se and advocating a strict doctrinal unity-- which is in essence a call for schism.

If the Anglicans are any indication, the big organized "liberal" bodies are due for a shakeout in which there will be a schism between the radical liberals and the centrist mainstream. Of course, in the short run that will create more churches, but hey-- that's what doctrinal conformity is all about.
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #160 on: April 26, 2005, 04:56:19 PM »

very true James; yet they would not have that much in common with fringe pentecostal or hard core fundamentalist groups
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #161 on: April 26, 2005, 04:59:53 PM »

Keble makes a good point too; a Reformed Presbyterian or Orthodox (not in our sense) Presbyterian church will differ greatly from a conservative Wesleyan  church
Logged
raluise
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #162 on: April 26, 2005, 05:28:04 PM »

Wow! I didn't realize this could generate so much discussion! Please be aware, as I have stated before, that I am a former Roman Catholic who studied for the priesthood in a French seminary in Switzerland. I have deep ties to those outside of Orthodoxy, and I truly thank God that my strong Roman Catholic background led me to study the Fathers of the Church, the Seven Ecumenical Councils and ultimately to Orthodoxy.

In response to my last post, someone asked what "tradition" we should follow - whose tradition? The answer is far simpler than it seems. The Church's divinely guided Tradition in its seven Ecumenical Councils. These councils are where the unified church defined its beliefs and clarified its position. This is "Tradition", capital T, which is a source of revelation - not "tradition", little t, such as priestly celibacy in the RC Church. Only a return to the unified, original teaching of the church can reunite Chirstianity. It is also the only thing that can prevent thosands of different denominations from splintering. Some still want to call the 20,000 number ridiculous. So be it, but it doesn't matter to me whether there are 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000. The fact is that each group, no matter how many there are, comes up with their own belief based on their understanding of scripture or the teaching of a "self-appointed" reformer - not the Church's divinely inspired understanding in its seven Ecumenical Councils as guided by the Holy Spirit through its proper Apostolic Succession. Orthodoxy is the only Christian religion on the face of the earth that has done this and continues to do this. Orthodoxy is unadulterated Christianity as pracitced in the early church in both its belief and liturgy. It's the old joke - how many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb? We don't know, because Orthodoxy never changes anything! In Orthodoxy, we miserable sinners (I'm pretty sure I'm at the top of that list) possess the fullness of the deposit of faith - complete and unchanged.

As for those who are outside the communion of Orthodoxy, we simply leave it to God. I'm not here to judge who ultimately lives a greater life of Christian virtue than someone else. In fact, I'm certain that I will be held more accountable before the Almighty because I have been given such a great gift. As our Lord said, "He who knows his master's will and does things deserving of stripes will be beaten with many. He who does not know his master's will and does things deserving of stripes will be beaten with few." Those of us who are Orthodox have a much greater charge before God. I'm certain the other Orthodox out there know exactly what I mean!


Logged

NULL
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #163 on: April 27, 2005, 08:43:59 AM »

In response to my last post, someone asked what "tradition" we should follow - whose tradition? The answer is far simpler than it seems. The Church's divinely guided Tradition in its seven Ecumenical Councils.

... which of course then leads to the question of which tradition you follow in interpreting that tradition.

It's never simple.
Logged
catholickid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40

Totus Tuus Maria


« Reply #164 on: April 27, 2005, 09:34:47 AM »

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article41.htm

Logged
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #165 on: April 27, 2005, 09:56:37 AM »

Catholickid,

I have examined your link, and noted that this page quotes Matthew 17:1-8, and follows that with the following:

"This passage from Sacred Scripture describes both a true historical event, which occurred to Jesus and his disciples, and a future event which will occur in the Church. Concerning the future event, the figures of Jesus, Moses, and Elijah represent Christianity, Judaism, and Islam."

uhhmmm....I think I want to hear why Elijah = Islam beyond this being just a numerical coincidence.
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #166 on: April 27, 2005, 10:02:20 AM »


You don't take this stuff seriously do you? Talk about stretching! It seems to me that the writer of this 'prophecy' fails to remember that Scripture clearly states that the end will come at a time we don't expect. Nonetheless, I'd love to know what his reasoning is - where on earth does he get his oh-so-specific dates from? They certainly aren't in the 'prophecies' of Malachy or the Bible.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
raluise
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #167 on: April 27, 2005, 11:50:54 AM »

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that the Seven Ecumenical Councils are subject to a "tradition" of interpretation. Following are the decrees of those councils. The first and second established the profession of faith (a profession recited in exactly this same form in every Orthodox Church in the world - a Creed that has been added to in the Western Church with the "filioque" clause). The last council confirmed the use of icons and visible representations of the spiritual world. Protestant reformers revolted against this in the 15 and 1600s. The councils in the middle dealt with who Christ was - true God and true Man. I can't imagine any "tradition' that claimed to be Christian finding any of these teachings subject to some sort of "interpretation". If they did disagree with any of the conciliar teachings, they would cease to be Christian. I'm not sure what they would be, but it wouldn't be Christian as taught by the unified Church through its divinely appointed Apostolic Succession.

Please let me know any teachings of these councils you disagree with or interpret with a different "tradition".


The First Ecumenical Council:
The Nicene Creed
A.D. 325

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten , not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Second Ecumenical Council:
The First Council Of Constantinople
A.D. 381

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead. Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver-of-Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And [we believe] in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins, [and] we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Third Ecumenical Council:
The Council Of Ephesus
A.D. 431

[Many anathamas and positions set forth, the creeds of the first two ecumenical council affirmed and delineated, but no creed per say was produced. The main task of this council, under the sway of St. Cyril, was the anathematizing of Nestorius. As for the rest of the acts and statements made at the Third Ecumenical Council, are they not written in the 38 volume work: Early Church Fathers, Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 14?]

The 12 Anathematisms Of St. Cyril Against Nestorius
1:
If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh (as it is written, "The Word was made flesh"): let him be anathema.

2:
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.

3:
If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

4:
If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

5:
If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because "the Word was made flesh," and "hath a share in flesh and blood as we do": let him be anathema.

6:
If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess him as at the same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, "The Word was made flesh": let him be anathema.

7:
If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as something not properly his: let him be anathema.

8:
If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this "Together with" is added [i. e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] "The Word was made flesh": let him be anathema.

9:
If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs: let him be anathema.

10:
Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him, who is become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.

11:
Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord giveth life and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him [i.e., the Word] only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh giveth life because it is that of the Word who giveth life to all: let him be anathema.

12:
Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life: let him be anathema.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council:
The Council of Chalcedon
A.D. 451

Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith, nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council:
The Second Council of Constantinople
A.D. 553

The Capitula Of The Council
1:
If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.

2:
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.

3:
If anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one [Person] and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person in another, but that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man, and that his miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he endured in the flesh were not of the same [Person]: let him be anathema.

4:
If anyone shall say that the union of the Word of God to man was only according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality of honour, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or according to good pleasure in this sense that God the Word was pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved him for his own sake, as says the senseless Theodorus, or [if anyone pretends that this union exists only] so far as likeness of name is concerned, as the Nestorians understand, who call also the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and even accord to the man the names of Christ and of Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only designating disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is to his honour, or his dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall not acknowledge as the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God the Word is made with the flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one Person, to wit: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema. As a matter of fact the word "union" has many meanings, and the partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed that these natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God, condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognises the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united, but also allows no separation.

5:
If anyone understands the expression "one only Person of our Lord Jesus Christ" in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.

6:
If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born [of her]; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema.

7:
If anyone using the expression, "in two natures," does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.

8:
If anyone uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

9:
If anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.

10:
If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema.

11:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

12:
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that the Word of God is one person, but that another person is Christ, vexed by the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and separated little by little above that which is inferior, and become better by the progress in good works and irreproachable in Iris manner of life, as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and obtained by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of Sonship, and to be worshipped out of regard to the Person of God the Word (just as one worships the image of an emperor) and that he is become, after the resurrection, unchangeable in his thoughts and altogether without sin. And, again, this same impious Theodore has also said that the union of God the Word with Christ is like to that which, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, exists between a man and his wife, "They twain shall be in one flesh." The same [Theodore] has dared, among numerous other blasphemies, to say that when after the resurrection the Lord breathed upon his disciples, saying, "Receive the Holy Ghost," he did not really give them the Holy Spirit, but that he breathed upon them only as a sign. He likewise has said that the profession of faith made by Thomas when he had, after the resurrection, touched the hands and the side of the Lord, viz.: "My Lord and my God," was not said in reference to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle of the resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up Christ. And moreover (which is still more scandalous) this same Theodore in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles compares Christ to Plato, Manichaeus, Epicurus and Marcion, and says that as each of these men having discovered his own doctrine, had given his name to his disciples, who were called Platonists, Manicheans, Epicureans and Marcionites, just so Christ, having discovered his doctrine, had given the name Christians to his disciples. If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.

13:
If anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against the true faith and against the first holy Synod of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his 12 Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his 12 Chapters, and who die in their impiety: let him be anathema.

14:
If anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, in which he denies that the Word of God incarnate of Mary, the Holy Mother of God and ever-virgin, was made man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the Word of God was one Person and the man another person; in which letter also he reprehends St. Cyril as a heretic, when he teaches the right faith of Christians, and charges him with writing things like to the wicked Apollinaris. In addition to this he vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus, affirming that it deposed Nestorius without discrimination and without examination. The aforesaid impious epistle styles the 12 Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favour, or in defence of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offences unto the end: let him be anathema.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council:
The Third Council Of Constantinople
A.D. 680-681

The Definition Of Faith
The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which has been assembled by the grace of God, and the religious decree of the most religious and faithful and mighty Sovereign Constantine, in this God-protected and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the Hall of the imperial Palace, called Trullus, has decreed as follows.

The only-begotten Son, and Word of God the Father, who was made man in all things like unto us without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel, "I am the light of the world he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." And again, "My peace I leave with, you, my peace I give unto you." Our most gentle Sovereign, the champion of orthodoxy, and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having convened this our holy and Ecumenical assembly, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and Ecumenical Synod having driven away the impious error which had prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its full assent to the five holy and Ecumenical Synods (that is to say, to that of the 318 holy Fathers who assembled in Nice against the raging Arius; and the next in Constantinople of the 150 God-inspired men against Macedonius the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first in Ephesus of 200 venerable men convened against Nestorius the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God; and in addition to these, to the last, that is the Fifth holy Synod assembled in this place, against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the 12 Chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the Epistle which was said to be written by Ibas to Maris the Persian), renewing in all things the ancient decrees of religion, and chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and Ecumenical Synod inspired of God has set its seal to the Creed which was put forth by the 318 Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the 150, which also the other holy synods cordially received and ratified for the taking away of every soul-destroying heresy.

The Nicene Creed of the 318 holy Fathers: We believe, etc.

The Creed of the 150 holy Fathers assembled at Constantinople: We believe, etc.

The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was Bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and endeavouring craftily to destroy the perfection of the incarnation of the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing his flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of will or operation. Christ, therefore, our God, has raised up our faithful Sovereign, a new David, having found him a man after his own heart, who as it is written, "has not suffered his eyes to sleep nor his eyelids to slumber," until he has found a perfect declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-collected and holy Synod; for, according to the sentence spoken of God, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," the present holy and Ecumenical Synod faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands as well the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Agatho, Pope of ancient Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and one operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ who is our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the Council holden under the same most holy Pope, composed of 125 Bishops, beloved of God, to his God-instructed tranquillity, as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and to the Tome of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same old Rome, which was directed to St. Flavian, which also this Council called the Pillar of the right faith; and also agrees with the Synodal Epistles which were written by Blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental Bishops. Following the five holy Ecumenical Councils and the holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be very God and very man, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in Deity and perfect in humanity, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human body subsisting; consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before all ages according to his Godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation made man of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and properly the Mother of God according to the flesh; one and the same Christ our Lord the only-begotten Son of two natures un-confusedly, unchangeably, inseparably indivisibly to be recognized, the peculiarities of neither nature being lost by the union but rather the proprieties of each nature being preserved, concurring in one Person and in one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons but one and the same only-begotten Son of God, the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, according as the Prophets of old have taught us and as our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath instructed us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us; defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: "I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!" where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: "His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified."

We glorify two natural operations indivisibly, immutably, inconfusedly, inseparably in the same our Lord Jesus Christ our true God, that is to say a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly asserts as follows: "For each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely, doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh."

For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says. Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation, and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly. Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race.

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council:
The Second Council Of Nice
A.D. 787

The Decree Of The Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod
The holy, great, and Ecumenical Synod which by the grace of God and the will of the pious and Christ-loving Emperors, Constantine and Irene, his mother, was gathered together for the second time at Nice, the illustrious metropolis of Bithynia, in the holy church of God which is named Sophia, having followed the tradition of the Catholic Church, hath defined as follows:

Christ our Lord, who hath bestowed upon us the light of the knowledge of himself, and hath redeemed us from the darkness of idolatrous madness, having espoused to himself the Holy Catholic Church without spot or defect, promised that he would so preserve her: and gave his word to this effect to his holy disciples when he said: "Lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," which promise he made, not only to them, but to us also who should believe in his name through their word. But some, not considering of this gift, and having become fickle through the temptation of the wily enemy, have fallen from the right faith; for, withdrawing from the traditions of the Catholic Church, they have erred from the truth and as the proverb saith: "The husbandmen have gone astray in their own husbandry and have gathered in their hands nothingness," because certain priests, priests in name only, not in fact, had dared to speak against the God-approved ornament of the sacred monuments, of whom God cries aloud through the prophet, "Many pastors have corrupted my vineyard, they have polluted my portion."

And, forsooth, following profane men, led astray by their carnal sense, they have calumniated the Church of Christ our God, which he hath espoused to himself, and have failed to distinguish between holy and profane, styling the images of our Lord and of his Saints by the same name as the statues of diabolical idols. Seeing which things, our Lord God (not willing to behold his people corrupted by such manner of plague) hath of his good pleasure called us together, the chief of his priests, from every quarter, moved with a divine zeal and brought hither by the will of our princes, Constantine and Irene, to the end that the traditions of the Catholic Church may receive stability by our common decree. Therefore, with all diligence, making a thorough examination and analysis, and following the trend of the truth, we diminish nought, we add nought, but we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church, and following the Six Ecumenical Synods, especially that which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nice, as also that which was afterwards gathered together in the God-protected Royal City.

We believe ...life of the world to come. Amen.

We detest and anathematize Arius and all the sharers of his absurd opinion; also Macedonius and those who following him are well styled "Foes of the Spirit" (Pneumatomachi). We confess that our Lady, St. Mary, is properly and truly the Mother of God, because she was the Mother after the flesh of One Person of the Holy Trinity, to wit, Christ our God, as the Council of Ephesus has already defined when it cast out of the Church the impious Nestorius with his colleagues, because he taught that there were two Persons [in Christ]. With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium [<greek>aulhs</greek>] as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus; and placing in the same category Severus, Peter and a number of others, blaspheming in divers fashions. Moreover, with these we anathematize the fables of Origen, Evagrius, and Didymus, in accordance with the decision of the Fifth Council held at Constantinople. We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations according to the reality of each nature, as also the Sixth Synod, held at Constantinople, taught, casting out Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and those who agree with them, and all those who are unwilling to be reverent.

To make our confession short, we keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditions handed down to us, whether in writing or verbally, one of which is the making of pictorial representations, agreeable to the history of the preaching of the Gospel, a tradition useful in many respects, but especially in this, that so the incarnation of the Word of God is shown forth as real and not merely phantastic, for these have mutual indications and without doubt have also mutual significations.

We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honourable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honourable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith which pertains alone to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honour which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever."

Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g., the Book of the Gospels, or the image of the cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries, if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion.
Logged

NULL
raluise
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #168 on: April 27, 2005, 12:22:15 PM »

Oh, I forgot.  The 3rd Ecumenical Council dealt with the Virgin Mary as the "Theotokos" - God bearer or Mother of God, a title many protestants today abhor.
Logged

NULL
catholickid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40

Totus Tuus Maria


« Reply #169 on: April 27, 2005, 12:45:55 PM »

I just thought I'ld throw it out there. The guy admited when he was wrong. I disagree with a lot on there... but its relevant to the topic, and some has been accurate.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #170 on: April 27, 2005, 01:18:36 PM »

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that the Seven Ecumenical Councils are subject to a "tradition" of interpretation. Following are the decrees of those councils.

Well, actually your list is incomplete. For instance, if you went to CCEL--

oh, and by the way: you rather obviously copied these texts from some on-line source. How about next time you just link to them instead of chewing up bandwith here with your copies?

--you would find a list of forty canons of Nicea. (Also, I believe the form of the creed as you give it dates from Ephesus, not Nicea.) How do all these canons apply to the present? Well, if you look at the canons concerning the date of Easter, for instance, you would find that they do not give a specific formula. That came later.

But moving on: As it happens, Western churches as rule accept trinitarian and Christological judgements of the seven councils. Therefore, that agreement doesn't get one very far. It's the rest of tradition that makes the difference.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 63 queries.