Armenian Apostolic and Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
Because:
"The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.
…
iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nicea and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed…

xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.

xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: “If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council."
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
Click to expand...
Now, frankly I am also sick and tired of you starting controversy on almost every thread I have seen. It is people like you who don’t want unity. It is people like you who sow discord. This thread was made to talk about the possibility of the Armenians coming back to Rome. But you have now made it into a Catholic/Eastern Orthodox debate like you always do. I am close to blocking you.

The above thread is a response I could not quote because I could not fit it all. And it’s only an excerpt from a larger more detailed article anyway.
 
prodromos said:
One of the most biased and hypocritical articles I have ever had the displeasure of reading.
Click to expand...
And I could say the same thing about an eastern orthodox article. In fact, most eastern orthodox articles are horribly bias!
 
Another excerpt:

In 1285, the Eastern Council of Blachernae, though it did reject the Latin formulations of the unifying Council of Lyon II (along with the mistaken notion that the West proclaimed a “double spiration”), it also declared its faith in an “eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son.” (Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium). Likewise, the comprehensive, 14th Century Eastern Orthodox work, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which exposes and condemns more that sixty anathemas representing the doctrinal decisions of Eastern councils, there is no mention of the Filioque, or even of Photius’ denial that the Spirit proceeds eternally ‘through’ the Son.

So, in short, it is simply untrue (as Mr. Quattrone asserts above) that there is no medial role of the Son in Eastern Pneumatology or that “Even if the Son did not exist, humanly speaking, the Holy Spirit would still exist.” This is not the comprehensive position of the Eastern fathers, but a later, medieval position popularized by certain factions in the Byzantine Church in direct response to contemporary misconceptions about the Latin term “Filioque.”

But, even if it were otherwise –even if no Eastern father said anything remotely supportive of the theology behind Filioque –there would still be an enormous problem for modern Eastern Orthodox to deal with. Why? Because, as the Greek bishops at Ferrara-Florence discovered to their dismay, almost every Latin father who ever lived is on record supporting Filioque in even more explicit terms.

Just to cite some examples of this (setting aside St. Augustine, whose support of Filioque is beyond question), we have …

Tertullian:

“We believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son.” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
St. Hilary of Poitiers:

“Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of Him Who must be acknowledged, Who is from the Father and the Son, His sources” (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
…and …
 
“In the fact that before times eternal, Your [the Father’s] Only-Begotten [Son] was born of You, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: He was begotten. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from You through Him” (ibid., 12:56).
St. Ambrose of Milan

“Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.’ [John 6:63]” (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

…and …

“The Holy Spirit, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate Himself from the Father and does not separate Himself from the Son” (ibid., 1:2:120).
Please note that St. Ambrose’s theology was very “Cappadocian.”

The Quicunque Vult (an early Western Creed, c. A.D. 380)

“The Father is of none, neither made, nor created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.”

Pope St. Damasus I

“The Holy Spirit is not of the Father only, or the Spirit of the Son only, but He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. For it is written, ‘In anyone loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15)’; and again it is written: ‘If anyone, however, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8:9).’ When the Father and the Son are named in this way, the Holy Spirit is understood, of Whom the Son Himself says in the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit ‘proceed from the Father (John 15:26),’ and that ‘He shall receive of mine and shall announce it to you (John 16:14).’”(Acts of the Council of Rome, 382).

Pope St. Leo the Great

“The Son is the Only-begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, not as any creature, which also is of the Father and of the Son, but as living and having power with both, and eternally subsisting of that which is the Father and the Son.” [Sermons 75:3]
 
The Athanasian Creed

“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in Oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 450]).

St. Fulgence of Ruspe

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, Who is one Person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit Himself also one Person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together.” (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).
…and …

“Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (ibid., 54).

And we can, of course, multiple many other examples, such as Pope St. Gregory the Great, who obviously approved of the canons of Toledo and held communion with the Spanish and Gaulish bishops who Liturgically professed Filioque.

Now, above I mentioned how Mark of Ephesus and the other Greeks at Ferrara-Florence (1439) were quite surprised and disturbed by the consistent and overwhelming testimony of the Western fathers in regard to Filioque. Their response to this was most interesting, and it reveals a less than commendable side of Byzantine ‘catholicity.’ As Joseph Gill comments in his very balanced historical account, The Council of Florence (emphasis mine):

“It was probably a shock to many of them [the Greek members of the Council] …The Saints of both Churches had written at length on the doctrine of the Trinity. The Latin Saints, it is true, used a phraseology that was suspect to the Greek mind, for they wrote ‘From the Father and the Son’. The Greek Saints were less emphatic, but they spoke of the Spirit being produced ‘from both’ and ‘through the Son’. No Saint could err in matters of faith, for they all – this was taken almost as a definition of sanctity --were inspired by the one Holy Spirit. …[Mark of Ephesus] persisted in asserting that the quotations advanced from the Latin Fathers were falsified (since the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, the Saints could not have said that He does, was his reasoning), in spite of their number and in spite of the fact that they are found so widespread in Latin writings and so interwoven into the treatises that to exclude them would leave no more than blank pages (as Bessarion rejoined): at the least they were doubtfully authentic, since the Greeks lacked the means of checking them, so only the Greek Fathers should be followed. Syropoulus was of the same opinion and, if we are to accept all that he retails in his Memoirs, he dilated on this theme even more than Mark of Ephesus.”

Or, as Mark of Ephesus expressed himself in his own words (emphasis mine)…

"The words of the western Fathers and Doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize (for they have never been translated into our tongue nor approved by the Oecumenical Councils) nor do I admit them, presuming that they are corrupt and interpolated…’ (Mark’s Confessio fidei, in Petit, Docs. P. 438 [300] ).

Notice how Mark of Ephesus, despite exhaustive Latin explanations, still twists Filioque into a doctrine making the Son a “cause” of the Spirit. His argument that the Western Church intentionally distorted, indeed forged, the entire Latin corpus of patristic literature (i.e., literally thousands of antique manuscripts) is of course blatantly ridiculous.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
The Athanasian Creed

“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in Oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding.” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 450])…
Click to expand...
Manyscholars say that the Athanasian creed was forged. .
books.google.com/books?id=7hTMZoV0ObUC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=athanasian+creed+is+forged&source=bl&ots=ZTbM5ibfsU&sig=1bh_VOYd6C5lcSr_zAxPZHFPkx4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYr9iih8nNAhVKzmMKHfgwAYAQ6AEIIjAC#v=onepage&q=athanasian%20creed%20is%20forged&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=dd8CAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=athanasian+creed+is+forged&source=bl&ots=gkse5uJpl_&sig=_ab93sUBbh49SmUuJ5f_64V-LlA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYr9iih8nNAhVKzmMKHfgwAYAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=athanasian%20creed%20is%20forged&f=false
 
thephilosopher6 said:
"The words of the western Fathers and Doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize (for they have never been translated into our tongue nor approved by the Oecumenical Councils) nor do I admit them, presuming that they are corrupt and interpolated…’ (Mark’s Confessio fidei, in Petit, Docs. P. 438 [300] ).

Notice how Mark of Ephesus, despite exhaustive Latin explanations, still twists Filioque into a doctrine making the Son a “cause” of the Spirit. His argument that the Western Church intentionally distorted, indeed forged, the entire Latin corpus of patristic literature (i.e., literally thousands of antique manuscripts) is of course blatantly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Please look into the history of the Athanasian creed.
 
Council of Florence (Session 6 [6 July 1439])

“For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.”
 
 
Tomdstone said:
They say it was Rome who broke from the true Orthodox Church and that it is Rome which is in heresy. Please see the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs:
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
According to their thinking, full union can occur as soon as the Roman Catholic Church joins the Orthodox Church, which they welcome with “brotherly love and zeal” according to this encyclical.
Click to expand...
It seems you are fond of reading history…how about taking out the polemics of either side…and look at the historical events that led to the schism…

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355

Mutual distrust caused mostly by political divisions and the different development of the Church’s organization in East and West, manifested particularly from the eleventh century on, have often embittered the minds of the controversialists and prevented the faithful on both sides from considering the problem without prejudice.

Instead of repeating all the known arguments pro and contra, let us try the historical method and examine the position which the Byzantine Church took on this problem from earliest times on up to the period when the estrangement between the Eastern and Western parts of mediaeval Christianity became apparent and began to envenom the atmosphere in which the Churches had to live.
 
Tomdstone said:
Here’s what the armeniapedia says:
"The main theological differences and disagreements between the Eastern (including the Armenians) and the Church of Rome (Catholics) are in the following issues:
Filioque: according to the teachings of the Church of Rome, the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son, while the Orthodox teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only;
Papal Supremacy: the Roman Catholics consider the Pope the “Vicar of Christ”, while the Orthodox churches consider him only as “first in honor” and in pastoral diakonia.
Papal Infallibility: The Catholics follow a “monarchical” model of ecclesial polity, while the Orthodox follow a “conciliar” model, i.e., church councils determine church dogma, canons and policies.
There are also other minor differences among these two branches of churches, such as the rules of fasting; unleavened bread at Eucharist (West); manner of conferring confirmation; celibacy of clergy; divorce (not sanctioned in Roman Catholicism); purgatory (East doesn’t teach it); …”
armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Apostolic_Church#THE_FAITH_OF_THE_ARMENIAN_CHURCH
Click to expand...
The differences can be summed in one issue…once this issue is resolved…all others follow suit…the role and primacy of the bishop of Rome.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
It does not matter,
Click to expand...
Not true. It does matter to scholars and to the Eastern Orthodox that the Athanasian creed is a forgery. Many of the quotations used by St. Thomas Aquinas in Contra Errores Graecorum have been taken from the Libellus de fide ss. Trinitatis of Nicholas of Cotrone, and have been proven conclusively to be false.
Please read the book:
The Athanasian Creed, by J.N.D. Kelly (London: Adams and Charles Black 1964).
Please see also the article by G. Morris: “L’Origine du symbole d’Athanase,” revue Benedictine vol. 44 (1932) pages 207-219.
It did matter to St. Mark of Ephesus
 
thephilosopher6 said:
And I could say the same thing about an eastern orthodox article. In fact, most eastern orthodox articles are horribly bias!
Click to expand...
If I had posted a link to one and presented it as fact like you did, you would have a valid point. As I did no such thing, you don’t have a valid point.
 
pablope said:
The differences can be summed in one issue…once this issue is resolved…all others follow suit…the role and primacy of the bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
There are a whole lot of other differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. But, I don;t think that the Orthodox will accept papal infallibility or the universal papal jurisdiction over the whole Church, east and west.
 
Tomdstone said:
Not true. It does matter to scholars and to the Eastern Orthodox that the Athanasian creed is a forgery. Many of the quotations used by St. Thomas Aquinas in Contra Errores Graecorum have been taken from the Libellus de fide ss. Trinitatis of Nicholas of Cotrone, and have been proven conclusively to be false.
Please read the book:
The Athanasian Creed, by J.N.D. Kelly (London: Adams and Charles Black 1964).
Please see also the article by G. Morris: “L’Origine du symbole d’Athanase,” revue Benedictine vol. 44 (1932) pages 207-219.
It did matter to St. Mark of Ephesus
Click to expand...
I’m saying it does not matter for my current argument whether or not is was forged. I have provided sufficient evidence for my position.
 
Tomdstone said:
There are a whole lot of other differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. But, I don;t think that the Orthodox will accept papal infallibility or the universal papal jurisdiction over the whole Church, east and west.
Click to expand...
There are no other issues besides you guys accusing us of holding different doctrinal views concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; though we have repeatedly shown that our position is the same as the Eastern Orthodox.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
There are no other issues besides you guys accusing us of holding different doctrinal views concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit; though we have repeatedly shown that our position is the same as the Eastern Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Not true. There are a whole lot of other issues that Orthodox believe are substantial in preventing any reunion between the two churches. For one example (and there are many, many more) , there are the liturgical issues as I mentioned. the Orthodox have a whole different notion of what a respectful liturgy should be.
youtube.com/watch?v=8DcUK3rXXx4
youtube.com/watch?v=OR_Yh_Ynvko
youtube.com/watch?v=UU6rxYHlR2E
youtube.com/watch?v=92QfdG2HEUU
youtube.com/watch?v=JKlFuH8gXCw

Of course, there are some respectful Roman Catholic liturgies but I have read complaints from Catholics about some others. I think you know what I mean.
There is the question of Matrimony and the Catholic marriage annulments, especially those granted in the USA.
Indulgences.
Orthodox do not accept some of the Roman Catholic saints.
Orthodox believe that sacred traditional icons are more in keeping with the biblical injunction against graven images. Orthodox generally do not use statues or modernistic non-traditional icons or paintings.
The lenten fasting regulations of Roman Catholics seem quite lenient in comparison with the Orthodox regulations.
The Orthodox do not believe in profane, modern music during the liturgy and in any case will generally refrain from using musical instrumentation at that time, preferring instead the human voice.
 
Tomdstone said:
Not true. There are a whole lot of other issues that Orthodox believe are substantial in preventing any reunion between the two churches. For one example (and there are many, many more) , there are the liturgical issues as I mentioned. the Orthodox have a whole different notion of what a respectful liturgy should be.
youtube.com/watch?v=8DcUK3rXXx4
youtube.com/watch?v=OR_Yh_Ynvko
youtube.com/watch?v=UU6rxYHlR2E
youtube.com/watch?v=92QfdG2HEUU
youtube.com/watch?v=JKlFuH8gXCw

Of course, there are some respectful Roman Catholic liturgies but I have read complaints from Catholics about some others. I think you know what I mean.
There is the question of Matrimony and the Catholic marriage annulments, especially those granted in the USA.
Indulgences.
Orthodox do not accept some of the Roman Catholic saints.
Orthodox believe that sacred traditional icons are more in keeping with the biblical injunction against graven images. Orthodox generally do not use statues or modernistic non-traditional icons or paintings.
The lenten fasting regulations of Roman Catholics seem quite lenient in comparison with the Orthodox regulations.
The Orthodox do not believe in profane, modern music during the liturgy and in any case will generally refrain from using musical instrumentation at that time, preferring instead the human voice.
Click to expand...
I was just being general. My goal wasn’t to list all the supposes problems between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Do you not listen? I have told you most of these things are traditions. They are tradition with a lower case ‘t’ They are not doctrines or dogmas and are mostly just different spiritual practices in each Church. Eastern Catholics follow exactly the same rules regarding fasting and music and others that Eastern Orthodox follow. These are in no way differences in belief or dogma. They are traditions and different liturgical practices. Please, I have explained these things to you. Get it through your head. I do not mean to be so blunt but please get it through your head.

Here is an article explaining Byzantine Catholic traditions and theology which is exactly the same as Eastern Orthodox because both are Byzantines.

east2west.org/doctrine.htm
 
thephilosopher6 said:
Do you not listen? I have told you most of these things are traditions. They are tradition with a lower case ‘t’ They are not doctrines or dogmas and are mostly just different spiritual practices in each Church. Eastern Catholics follow exactly the same rules regarding fasting and music and others that Eastern Orthodox follow. These are in no way differences in belief or dogma. They are traditions and different liturgical practices. Please, I have explained these things to you. Get it through your head.
Click to expand...
You have Orthodox who do not want to join with a Church, such as the Roman Church, which does not share their traditions and reverent liturgical practices. There are even some Roman Catholics who are uncomfortable with the New Mass, the guitar music, the annulment practices, and communion in the hand. Some have even been excommunicated because they refuse to attend the New Mass, and will only pray the Tridentine Latin Mass. If it is only a tradition, with a small t, why were these Traditional Catholics excommunicated? They have refused to give up their tradition of a latin Mass, but I don;t see where they rejected any doctrine or dogma, and still, they were excommunicated. Traditions are important to some Christians, even though you may not consider them to be doctrines or dogmas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top