D
dvdjs
Guest
In other words no JPII and no heresy. Thanks.
- Status
D
dvdjs
Guest
And you still have not sourced you claim that:
.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Are you saying he wanted the Greeks to say the Nicene Creed in Latin? While not heretical, that’s almost a worse accusation.
Or are you saying that he was just in Constantinople as a tourist and the Patriarch went crazy on him and excommunicated the West?
D
dvdjs
Guest
I am saying what I said. Ultimately, I aim to to get you to limit your claims about who did what, who said what, who insisted what, and so forth, to actual facts that can be supported. No point in discussing the significance of such matters if the facts are not accurate but being treated so loosely that their meaning is obscured.
M
mardukm
Guest
Patriarch Cerularius wanted the West to give up the practice of using unleavened bread.
The Trullan Synod wanted to force the West to give up the celibate priesthood.
Judging from Mark of Ephesus’ letter agains the Union, the East wanted to impose the Energy/Essence distinction on the Western Tradition, and wanted them to give up their belief in purgatorial fire (even though the Latins admitted it was merely a theologoumenon).
Today, we have EO complaining that Latin Catholics must give up statues and the doctrine of the Atonement. In the past, EO complained that the epiclesis of the Latins was not explicit enough.
Yes, the Eastern Church has a fair history of trying to impose its own norms on the Latins.
Blessings
G
Ghosty
Guest
Just want to make it clear that Cardinal Humbert did not deliver a Papal Bull. He simply delivered a sealed (bulla) letter that he himself had written after arriving in Constantinople. If it had been a Papal Bull it would not have contained accusations about occurances that occurred after Humbert had arrived in Constantinople.
Peace and God bless!
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Help me to understand where you’re coming from - you are wanting proof that the filioque was at the core of the controversy which occured in 1054?
edit, and here’s the bull of excommunication.
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf
You’ll note one of the accusations he makes is that the East “cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son”, that is they did not add the words και ο υιος to the creed, which as it seems some Catholics in official positions which you don’t recognize say, is an error.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
While true, I had forgotten of the first, and was unaware of the second, my reading of the context of the post I was responding to was around the time of 1054.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
In other words the Bishops were wrong to say this? Do the Bishops negotiate without authority or meaning?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Funny thing that, I was going out of my way to make sure my text didn’t implicate the pope in issuing the bull and completely forgot that bit.Just want to make it clear that Cardinal Humbert did not deliver a Papal Bull. He simply delivered a sealed (bulla) letter that he himself had written after arriving in Constantinople. If it had been a Papal Bull it would not have contained accusations about occurances that occurred after Humbert had arrived in Constantinople.
Peace and God bless!
D
dvdjs
Guest
Where I am coming from is just exactly what I said in the last post. There is absolutely no point in trying to draw inferences about the crux, about significance, interpretations, or implications, until we agree on the actual facts. I don’t like it when people seem to feel free to make up their own version of the facts that, while arguably similar to reality, is in fact different, and is typically slanted to stack the deck in any further discussion.
D
dvdjs
Guest
In plain words, the allegations that your made are not supportable with actual facts.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No, the exact allegations I made aren’t supported by evidence I was able to quickly find on the internet, however the fact remains that Catholic Bishops acting in an official capacity are saying what I said, so you can avoid the issue by saying that isn’t the exact allegation I made, or you can choose to dialogue on this.
I’ll continue to search for something that quotes JPII, however I don’t believe my argument depends on it.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The fact is that you made a claim:
You have not been able to support either the idea that " Greek version of the Filioque has been acknowledged as heretical by JPII" or that there was a Papal bull delivered to the Greeks that “insisted that the Greeks use the Greek version of the Filioque in the Creed”. I am glad that you have a point that does not depend to the veracity of your claims. But the fact is that you claimed things that you have yet to support and which may be untrue. Those claims caught my eye.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I did provide a link to the bull, if you bothered to read it. Ghosty already corrected me on calling it a Papal Bull, given that the topic was that Cardinal Humbert was a heretic that was me mispeaking, since I fully acknowledge he wrote it and didn’t get Papal approval first.
Still, the fact your sticking to this without addressing the point in question.
Incidently, the link I gave before, that you say doesn’t support anything I’ve said, was issued just a couple of weeks after John Paul II and his Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew II concluded meetings. John Paul II has also steadfastly refused to state the filioque when he’s concelebrated a liturgy in Greek.
Now I can find nothing trustworthy that says the Catholic Church holds the Holy Spirit originates with both the Father and the Son. if that is your contention show me where it comes from, if you’re just being a legalist who doesn’t actually care about what we’re discussing but only wants to be right, tell me now so I can add you to ignore.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Dvdjs,
I find I have to side with brother Nine_Two on what he is saying, setting aside the lack of direct evidence.
I do believe it is very sensible to interpret Cardinal Humbert’s accusation that the Eastern Church removed filioque from the Creed as an admonition that they add it.
And I also believe it is very sensible to interpret HH JP2’s confession of the Creed in Greek without filioque, as well as his explicit statement in the Official Clarification on Filioque that the Latin Church “refuses” to add filioque when saying the Creed in Greek, as a tacit admission that “and the Son” is heretical if used in the Greek Creed.
Blessings,
Marduk
I find I have to side with brother Nine_Two on what he is saying, setting aside the lack of direct evidence.
I do believe it is very sensible to interpret Cardinal Humbert’s accusation that the Eastern Church removed filioque from the Creed as an admonition that they add it.
And I also believe it is very sensible to interpret HH JP2’s confession of the Creed in Greek without filioque, as well as his explicit statement in the Official Clarification on Filioque that the Latin Church “refuses” to add filioque when saying the Creed in Greek, as a tacit admission that “and the Son” is heretical if used in the Greek Creed.
Blessings,
Marduk
D
dvdjs
Guest
It is not about my being right, it is about asking you to say things at that are actually true - not something “close” or something invented to advances an agenda, but actually true. That is not too much to ask.
It is a complete waste of time to talk about broader points that may be based on faulty facts. And that general principle, applicable to many things posted here, is what I care about. You may wish to ignore it. That is your prerogative, but that action will not change the truth.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m curious, what are your personal opinions on it?
Do you believe the Father and the Son are the point of origin?
Do you believe the Father is the origin and the Holy Spirit proceeds through the son?
Do you believe something else entirely?
D
dvdjs
Guest
I disagree with this idea of sensible interpretation.
First, the remarks were presented as plain facts, and were thus part of the flood of misinformation on the net. Moreover, the remarks were more pointed than you allow. There was the idea of “insistence”, and the idea of the bull being a Papal bull. The latter notion has been retracted by nine-two. There was also the flat claim of a finding of heresy by a Pope. I am honestly curious about evidence for the a papal finding of heresy. That is a powerful claim that simply cannot be inferred, however sensibly or speciously, but demands documentation, So far - no pope and no heresy.
Dialogue can be advanced only if we agree to stick to accuracy in objective facts, and clarity in the difference between fact and interpretation. Who knows, once we work out a common historical hermeneutic, as Father Taft suggests, we may find that our interpretations also begin to cohere and we can get beyond the nonsense. I think he is onto to something, and I am happy, in my own little way, to help that vision along.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’ll take that to mean you don’t want to answer my question.
Just wondering if you have more at stake in this than you’ve let on.
Just wondering if you have more at stake in this than you’ve let on.
- Status