Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456
Author
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Pope: A Discussion of the Roman Primacy
    Posted: 22-Sep-2008 at 21:36
Because of recent events unrelated to this dialogue, arch.buff and I will not be continuing this particular conversation. I would encourage anyone interested in the topic to research the historical figures we have discussed, and to read their works in the original.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 00:01
What happened to the last page its completely blank , forum error or? 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 02:41
Originally posted by es_bih

What happened to the last page its completely blank , forum error or? 
 
I was a bit curious about that too.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 05:27
Originally posted by es_bih

What happened to the last page its completely blank , forum error or? 
 
Is it just page 5 that appears blank? I have heard this from others also. It appears fine on my screen. Hmm, I wonder if this is the way it appears for most here?? Odd indeed... 
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 05:52
Yeah, been trying to read it, as I had some time to spare, but can't seem to render it Disapprove
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 15:17
Thats very disappointing, as Ako and myself put in much time in that discussion; there is a wealth of information that could be viewed. Hopefully the page will soon clear up. Then again, perhaps thats why I often end up in trouble, I just wait for the situation to work itself out...LOL

Edited by arch.buff - 23-Sep-2008 at 15:18
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 20:02
I can see the 5th page just fine, perhaps it's a Catholic conspiracy? Evil%20Smile
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 03:46
Embarrassed
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 03:58
It is a bit odd. I used to be able to see the whole thing (obviously, since I was posting in it). LOL Then, several months ago or so, I checked the page, and could only see around 1/2 to 1/3 of it.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 04:07
Ok I was able to see it earlier before work after it loaded for a few minutes, but earlier than that not at all.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Sep-2008 at 21:47
Reply to arch.buff's PM:

I tried sending a PM but i kept getting an error. I had not posted in this thread because I believed everything I needed to say was already said probably better then I could say it.
 
As for your comment that you do not believe reunion can be met by Orthodox going to the Catholic or Catholic going to the Orthodox, but both going towards each other, I must disagree. I would quicker believe that the Orthodox have to go to the Catholic then meeting half way. Here is why. In scripture we are told that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against God's Church. To me the Gates of Hell are fallacy and indeed evil, darkness, the devil are lies, fallacies, unreality, illusion etc. If the Gates of Hell prevail against the Orthodox Church then the Orthodox Church is not God's Church. If the Gates of hell prevail against the Catholic Church then it is not God's Church. If the Gates of hell prevail against both then neither is God's Church. So in saying that one has to be right. Both can't be wrong.
 
Though your sentiments may be well meaning I think they are incorrect and ecumenist (in the heretical sense). The notion of unification, peace, love, no arguements, all of this sounds very nice and well but under what pretense? Remember the devil tempts people with things that are good. I am all for unification but not at the expense of my salvation.


Edited by Carpathian Wolf - 27-Sep-2008 at 21:48
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2008 at 00:00
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Reply to arch.buff's PM:

I tried sending a PM but i kept getting an error. I had not posted in this thread because I believed everything I needed to say was already said probably better then I could say it.
 
As for your comment that you do not believe reunion can be met by Orthodox going to the Catholic or Catholic going to the Orthodox, but both going towards each other, I must disagree. I would quicker believe that the Orthodox have to go to the Catholic then meeting half way. Here is why. In scripture we are told that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against God's Church. To me the Gates of Hell are fallacy and indeed evil, darkness, the devil are lies, fallacies, unreality, illusion etc. If the Gates of Hell prevail against the Orthodox Church then the Orthodox Church is not God's Church. If the Gates of hell prevail against the Catholic Church then it is not God's Church. If the Gates of hell prevail against both then neither is God's Church. So in saying that one has to be right. Both can't be wrong.
 
Though your sentiments may be well meaning I think they are incorrect and ecumenist (in the heretical sense). The notion of unification, peace, love, no arguements, all of this sounds very nice and well but under what pretense? Remember the devil tempts people with things that are good. I am all for unification but not at the expense of my salvation.
 
Hello Carpathian,
 
Although we may be at a disagreement here, I definitely understand your concerns. The fact remains, however,  that the christian community spread abroad is disunified. This certainly would run counter to our Lord's will that- "we may be one". If our respective churches are to really attain full communion, we must seek to look within our common existence and faith. We can scarcely say that our attempts at reunion be made profitable, if we are to continue with a concept that others should conform all of their beliefs to our own. I believe Yves Congar demonstrates a good example:
 
"It seemed to me also that each individual's ecumenical task lay in the first place in the home among his own people. Our business was to rotate the Catholic Church through a few degrees on its own axis in the direction of convergence towards others, and a possible unanimity with them, in accordance with a deeper and closer fidelity to our unique source, our common source."  
 
As far as the Gates of Hell go, why would seeking a deeper truth that already subsits within our common source be perceived as the Gates prevailing against the church? This should not be viewed as "meeting halfway" or of a "compromise". A compromise would result in the Gates prevailing against Christ's church, but to reach a deeper truth of what is already within ourselves would not. Of course none of this can be attained without the work of the Holy Spirit.
 
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Sep-2008 at 04:04

Once again. Either the Orthodox Church is fully correct or the Catholic Church is fully correct. If both are incorrect i'm going to go pray to Zalmoxis. There is no "deeper truth" these are words that blurr the reality of things. Until the heresies of the west are not forsaken there is no unification. Your view that we must "look in our combined past for a deeper truth" is suggesting that both churches are lacking something but this runs contrary to scripture.

 
Do you want to unify? It can be done tonight brother. Forsake the heresy of the filioque, the papacy, immaculate conception to start with and we'll be unified. In essense become Orthodox. That is all I can do for you. I do not believe I need to believe anything from your church that contradicts mine because doing so would mean Orthodoxy is incorrect.
 
Either you are right completely or I am right completely or we are both wrong. I do not believe God left either one of us with a church to "fix along the way."
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 01:52
Once again. Either the Orthodox Church is fully correct or the Catholic Church is fully correct.


Or..........neither is fully correct but they are leading us on the right path to completely fulfilling God's will. Neither church has served it's purpose yet as Christ has not returned to earth, at least AFAIK.

Forsake the heresy of the filioque, the papacy, immaculate conception to start with and we'll be unified.


I doubt how any of those can be considered heresies considering they don't contradict Church law or tradition. I mean the filioque was necessary to combat a heretical belief in order to explain the belief that both the Catholics and Orthodox share. The papacy is only in charge of the "Latin church" much in the same way the Patriarch of Constantinople controls his church and the Metropole (is this the right word?) of Moscow controls his church. And the Immaculate Conception is a philosophical concept that is under much scrutiny even in the Latin church.

Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 02:45
If you would please read my previous posts you will see I explained that if both churches are incorrect then the Gates of Hell prevailed and it contradicts scripture.
 
Papal supremacy does contradict Church law and is a fabrication constructed through the medieval ages. "First amongst equals" does not mean right to rule over other bishops. This isn't even a theological issue at its root, it's political. The west wanted power over the east. "First amongst equals" is a formality. And if being part of Peter's line of succession denotes supremacy over the entire church, then the Seat of Antioch should be that successive line because Peter was bishop there first. He was only killed in Rome.
 
Next the filioque is incorrect in more then one way.
 
1. No council was called to make any changes. So the filioque was added without the Church, without the Holy Spirit, without the Son and without the Father. It is a man made fabrication.
 
2. The trinity is made up of 3 distinct persons with their own role, yet equal in power and eternity into One. Begotteness can not be a person trait amongst 2 of persons of the Trinity. If you follow this rabbit hole you will see that the filioque is an anti-Trinity heresy.
 
Even the bishop of Rome was against the filioque until Charlamagne forced him into it because he wanted to hijack the Roman Empire.
 
Immaculate conception makes a demi god out of Saint Maria.
 
 
I don't believe that God has left on this earth no complete Church for his people. To believe this is against scripture and Church. Look at all of our contraversies between east and west. The main ones are:
 
Filioque (western addition)
Papacy (western addition)
Immaculate conception (western addition)
 
Can you name one single Orthodox thing which the Catholic Church views as heresy that isn't due to the Orthodox accepting this innovations? Ask yourself which has remained and which one has added onto the faith?
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 22:42
Hello Carpathian,
 
Forgive me in my long absence. It has been rather hectic lately, to say the least.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

If you would please read my previous posts you will see I explained that if both churches are incorrect then the Gates of Hell prevailed and it contradicts scripture.
 
Perhaps I have not been as clear as I should have. The Catholic church views herself as the One Church that Christ established. Allow me to quote from the Introduction of the Decree on Ecumenism:
 
"The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature." (Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio)
 
As we presently see, the Catholic church also believes that Christ established one church, and so, views herself as such.
 
The Decree goes onto say:
 
Sacred theology and other branches of knowledge, especially of an historical nature, must be taught with due regard for the ecumenical point of view, so that they may correspond more exactly with the facts.

It is most important that future shepherds and priests should have mastered a theology that has been carefully worked out in this way and not polemically, especially with regard to those aspects which concern the relations of separated brethren with the Catholic Church.

This importance is the greater because the instruction and spiritual formation of the faithful and of religious depends so largely on the formation which their priests have received.

Moreover, Catholics engaged in missionary work in the same territories as other Christians ought to know, particularly in these times, the problems and the benefits in their apostolate which derive from the ecumenical movement.

 The way and method in which the Catholic faith is expressed should never become an obstacle to dialogue with our brethren. It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded.

At the same time, the Catholic faith must be explained more profoundly and precisely, in such a way and in such terms as our separated brethren can also really understand.

Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ. (Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio)

Notice how the Decree makes emphasis on more clearly understanding the doctrines and beliefs of our seperated brethren. This should not be taken from a view that the Catholic church wishes to incorporate all beliefs of every christian community into a comprehensive universal church where we can all believe in any such doctrine as we wish. Rather, as we take up the love of truth and charity as our theme, we shall strive for a fuller understanding of truth through the guiding Holy Spirit. It shall do us well to keep in mind that revelation in the church did not cease with the passing of the apostles, or for that matter, with any certain point in time. 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Papal supremacy does contradict Church law and is a fabrication constructed through the medieval ages. "First amongst equals" does not mean right to rule over other bishops. This isn't even a theological issue at its root, it's political. The west wanted power over the east. "First amongst equals" is a formality. And if being part of Peter's line of succession denotes supremacy over the entire church, then the Seat of Antioch should be that successive line because Peter was bishop there first. He was only killed in Rome.
 
As far as your exmaple of Antioch goes, can you provide any writings from the fathers that would suggest this train of thought ever existed?
 
"He was only killed in Rome."- Needless to say, the proper word I believe you were looking for was: martyred in Rome. Which is a caveat that certainly bears more emphasis to the early church then it does to you. For when Hegesippus, like Irenaeus, compiles the line of succession of the Roman bishops, it becomes apparent that the Roman line can not be arbitrarily replaced by that of Corinth or Ephesus. Both saints were countering the Gnostics by appealing to the apostlic continuity. In summary, the church never viewed Antioch as the 'See of Peter'.
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Next the filioque is incorrect in more then one way.
 
1. No council was called to make any changes. So the filioque was added without the Church, without the Holy Spirit, without the Son and without the Father. It is a man made fabrication.
 
2. The trinity is made up of 3 distinct persons with their own role, yet equal in power and eternity into One. Begotteness can not be a person trait amongst 2 of persons of the Trinity. If you follow this rabbit hole you will see that the filioque is an anti-Trinity heresy.
 
Even the bishop of Rome was against the filioque until Charlamagne forced him into it because he wanted to hijack the Roman Empire.
 
While I would say that there be many Eastern Orthodox that would share your extreme opinion, I would also posit that there be others that would endeavour to take a more realistic understanding:
 

"The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences." (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)

As seen above, even the most erudite scholar, such as Ware, can often times overreact over such controversies as that of the Filioque. You seem also to be confused as to what the Catholic church truly believes. The Spirit is not begotten, but he proceeds. Begotteness is not a trait that the Spirit shares with the Son, for if he did, then He too would be a Son. The reality is, your misunderstanding is not uncharacteristic of the Eastern churches. What the Eastern churches must strive to do,(that goes as well for the Catholic church) is to try and seek an understanding from the other point of view. That is to say, to try and understand the filioque in the Western and Alexandrian expession, and not try and fit it into the Greek Patristic tradition. For the Greek Patristic tradition is not the Apostolic tradition itself. It is a question of charity and catholicity.
 
Photius brought abot this charge, among other things, against the Latins. If it should be seen as a heresy in itself, then the undivided church fell into heresy and the Gates of Hell did prevail. As we should note, after Photius' allegations against the West, the East still held communion with the Latins. As the Anglican scholar Dr. Pusey notes:
 
"The Greeks would condemn forefathers of their own, if they were to pronounce the clause to be heretical. For it would be against the principles of the Church to be in communion with an heretical body. But from the deposition of Photius A.D. 886 to, at least, A.D. 1009, East and West retained their own expression of faith without schism." (Pusey, On the clause "and the son" in regards to the Eastern Church and the Bonn Conference)
 
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Immaculate conception makes a demi god out of Saint Maria.
 
It is to my understanding, that the Orthodox church does not condemn such beliefs, and states that it is not heretical or schismatic if the Orthodox faithful were to believe such doctrine. Perhaps you can more elaborate on why you disagree with such beliefs.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

I don't believe that God has left on this earth no complete Church for his people. To believe this is against scripture and Church. Look at all of our contraversies between east and west. The main ones are:
 
Refer to my opening post.
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Filioque (western addition)
Immaculate conception (western addition)
 
Can you name one single Orthodox thing which the Catholic Church views as heresy that isn't due to the Orthodox accepting this innovations? Ask yourself which has remained and which one has added onto the faith?
 
Suppose for a moment brother, what one would accuse another of "introducing", another could accuse of "not recognizing".
 
I would also pose you a like question: Should it not be seen as justly heretical to deny a truth, as it is to add to a truth?
 
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Papacy (western addition)
 
For this is the reason we are here brother. Would love to hear more of your thoughts regarding the topic.
 
God bless,
 
arch.buff


Edited by arch.buff - 09-Oct-2008 at 22:51
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2008 at 01:46
I decided to come back from my sabbatical long enough to write this one post.
 
Two points of clarification:
 
I believe it was either Lateran IV or Lyons which said that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the son "as from one principle" to render the Latin literally. Thus the vehemence of the Greek opposition to the clause. Florence rejected this formula in favor of a "through the son" compromise position, to which Kallistos is referring. In essence, I think that you both might be speaking past each other.
 
As for the immaculate conception, the Orthodox do not accept it. It has not been condemned in a general synod since there has been no general synod since Jerusalem. That said, we hold with -- ironically enough -- Aquinas, Bonaventure, and many other western luminaries in rejecting it. Scotus' maxim (it was Scotus, was it not?) has always struck me as a bit opportunistic, and is certainly a principle wit such ill-defined bounds as to be dangerous.
 
As for the rest of it, while I find much to disagree with in certain posts in this thread, I believe I will wait for evidence of good faith before I return to the discussion. Until then, I shall simply clarify things that I believe you guys might have missed, or points on which I think you both might not be seeing eye to eye. At least I will when I return. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
arch.buff View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 606
  Quote arch.buff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Oct-2008 at 19:39
Originally posted by Akolouthos

I decided to come back from my sabbatical long enough to write this one post.
 
Two points of clarification:
 
I believe it was either Lateran IV or Lyons which said that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the son "as from one principle" to render the Latin literally. Thus the vehemence of the Greek opposition to the clause. Florence rejected this formula in favor of a "through the son" compromise position, to which Kallistos is referring. In essence, I think that you both might be speaking past each other.
 
To shed some light on your clarification, which I think brings up important facets of our discussion that I was previously alluding to. At the root of the semantic confusion we find the Greek word for proceeds rendered- ekporeusis. Of course this has a specific meaning, and takes its meaning in the origination in a single Source, Principal, or Cause- Aitia. Of course this single Cause is the Father. The precise reason for this was that the council was countering the heresy of the Macedonian Arians, who were claiming that the Spirit was merely a 'creation' of the Son. Of course the council responded that the Spirit was Divine and had His Source, like the Son, with the Father. The Latin translation for this was rendered- procedit, which is a word that is not an exact translation as the word does not make emphasis on the procession from a single Source. This is something that cannot be overstated. It must be viewed in this light, if we are to really be objective on the issue. The fact that the West never adhered to, or was aware of the Greek implications of the word is a bit of a piece of golden information. Having said all this, the Western Church has always held the Father as the sole Cause and Principle.
 
I am glad that you have shared words in the thread Ako; it goes as to highlight my latest post about the catholic charity we must offer eachother. I do not blame you here, for the issue of 'Father and Son as from one Principle' on the surface is not obvious to the Byzantine mind. But when in dialogue with one another we must step out of our own expression and try and step into the others' point of view and not try to form fit our own preoccupations neatly and soundly. The Catholic church has just as much responsibilty in this area as does the Eastern churches.
 
One example of how the Western church has failed, on her pat, of engaging in a good communicational relationship with her Eastern brethren, is that she has not made as much emphasis on the Father's monarchial state and how the Father is the only single Cause and Principle.
 
The Western church believes, however, in a collective procession, and has to be viewed in that context. The Son is a necessary presence and an Eternal Participant in the procession that has its sole Cause from the Father. It is a different approach and emphasis on the same truth. In Western theology, the monarchy of the Father is never really emphasised, and is often taken for granted precisely because the West never preoccupied with that heresy in any abundance. The Spanish Arians claimed that the Son could not be God if the Spirit of Sonship(the Holy Spirit) existed eternally apart from Him. In response, the bishops of Toldeo proclaimed that Son is essential to the procession of the Spirit of Sonship.
 
Allow me to provide an example of how, even a keen mind such as Metropolitan Zizoulas, can be limited by their very own traditional expressions. Taken from his critique of the document provided by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
 
"Does the expression ‘principaliter’ necessarily preclude making the Son a kind of secondary cause in the ontological emergence of the Spirit? The Filioque seems to suggest two sources of the Spirit’s personal existence, one of which (the Father) may be called the first and original cause (principaliter), while the other one (the Son) may be regarded as a secondary (not principaliter) cause, but still a ‘cause’ albeit not ‘principaliter.’ The discussions both at the time of St. Photius and at Lyons and Ferrara-Florence seem to have paid special attention to this delicate point. It is not accidental that the Greek theologians even since the time of Photius insisted …the Father is the sole cause of the Son as well as of the Spirit. This concern does not seem to be fully covered by the Augustinian expression ‘principaliter.’ The Second Council of Lyons is unclear on this matter when it says that the Father as the Father of His Son is ‘together with Him the single principal from which the Spirit proceeds.’"
 
Here we find just how the Eastern mind cannot detach itself from the Constantinople I frame of mind. Filioque is only seen as an addition to the creedal statements at Constantinople, and not as a completely different, but complementary, perspective. Thus the Son must be seen as some kind of "secondary cause", which is to once again engage into the act of trying to form-fit the Filioque into the Eastern traditional expession. The reality is, the Western church does not view the Son as a "secondary cause" or as a "non-principaliter" cause, or anything of the sorts. When speaking of "from one Principle" and "equally proceeding" from both the Father and Son we speak here of the collective context of the procession of which the Son has his Eternal Participation.
 
I spoke earlier of the unequivalent Latin term- procedit, for the Greek word ekporeusis. However, there is another word for proceeds in the Greek that does carry the same meaning as procedit; that being: proienai. And it is used quite often among the Eastern fathers, especially Alexandrian.
 
In closing I would just like to make emphasis, once again, on the point that we(Catholic and Orthodox) must strive to understand doctrines held by our respective brethren in the manner in which our counterparts view and believe them.
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos

As for the immaculate conception, the Orthodox do not accept it. It has not been condemned in a general synod since there has been no general synod since Jerusalem. That said, we hold with -- ironically enough -- Aquinas, Bonaventure, and many other western luminaries in rejecting it. Scotus' maxim (it was Scotus, was it not?) has always struck me as a bit opportunistic, and is certainly a principle wit such ill-defined bounds as to be dangerous.
 
As for the rest of it, while I find much to disagree with in certain posts in this thread, I believe I will wait for evidence of good faith before I return to the discussion. Until then, I shall simply clarify things that I believe you guys might have missed, or points on which I think you both might not be seeing eye to eye. At least I will when I return. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
 
Yes, it was the 'Subtle Doctor'. I recently heard a joke that runs thus: The church now calls those that deny the Immaculate Conception heretics. In the Middle Ages they just called them Dominicans.LOL Scotus has many critics and often time you'll here that the doctrine is no more than a 'probable opinion'. However, if you have read Scotus, you will note that it certainly brings about the possibility. I dont think it a coincidence that Scotus immediately succeeded Aquinas.
 
God bless,
 
arch.buff


Edited by arch.buff - 10-Oct-2008 at 23:42
Be a servant to all, that is a quality of a King.
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620
  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jan-2010 at 19:49
I merely seem to feel that this site might be related?

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/instructions1/john.shtml Or this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_of_Maniava Or even this;
http://easterncatholics.org/popularicons6.html

Regards,
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 456

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.