Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue Resumes this week

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pravoslavac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pope Benedict XVI is far more open to discussion than Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers, I can only hope and pray he has more success.
 
JohnDamian said:
Pope Benedict XVI is far more open to discussion than Cardinal Humbert of Mourmoutiers, I can only hope and pray he has more success.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. If the Greeks were really castrating their guests, they probably should have been excommunicated.
 
Nine_Two said:
If the Greeks didn’t castrate the heresiarch Humbert, I doubt they did it to anyone else.
Click to expand...
His Eminence Cardinal Humbert deserves much more respect than you are giving him. Regardless of your personal distate for him, not only was he an Orthodox bishop (and Cardinal!) by your ecclesiology, he was no heresiarch. He was in no way the leader or initiator of any “Roman heresies”, least of all the schism.

The schism had started two hundreds years earlier and wasn’t complete for another four hundred.
 
Pravoslavac said:
Sounds hopeful that there is true work and not too much butting heads…

ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE68N39Z20100924
Click to expand...
The churches split in 1054 over the primacy of the Roman pope, the most senior bishop in early Christianity. The Orthodox in Constantinople, now Istanbul, rejected Roman primacy and developed national churches headed by their own patriarchs.
Click to expand...
From the article.

See? Even Reuters acknowledges that our way is more ancient. 😛
 
WetCatechumen said:
See? Even Reuters acknowledges that our way is more ancient. 😛
Click to expand...
I don’t seem to recall reading anything from the fathers about the ancient practice of holding clown Masses. I don’t know, maybe I missed something? 🤷:D:p
 
WetCatechumen said:
From the article.

See? Even Reuters acknowledges that our way is more ancient. 😛
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if you’re speaking from lack of knowledge but the problem was never primacy, but rather supremacy…which are two entirely different things. The media loves to misquote the reason for the schism.

I’m always reading on this board about JC saying Peter’s the rock upon which he’ll build His Church and that he’s given the ability to “bind and loose.” If you read further he then gives that same ability to bind and loose to the rest of the apostles. And for those of you who are not aware but the EO has apostolic success from Apostle Andrew, who if you apply the same notion, is able to “bind and loose” as well.

Rome always had undoubtedly a special place, but according to the first millenium no Patriarch (Bishop of Rome or Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc) was supreme over the other. They were all equals…but the bishop of Rome was considered the First Among Equals. Supremacy in the role of the bishop of rome was something that evolved in the church of the west, never among the remaining 4 Patriarchates of the original Taxis.

I would hope WetCatechumen that you would be a little more careful of what you’re posting. If unity is to ever truly happen, we all need to be harmonious in our thoughts and our comments.
 
Dear brother WetCatechumen,
WetCatechumen said:
His Eminence Cardinal Humbert deserves much more respect than you are giving him. Regardless of your personal distate for him, not only was he an Orthodox bishop (and Cardinal!) by your ecclesiology, he was no heresiarch. He was in no way the leader or initiator of any “Roman heresies”, least of all the schism.

The schism had started two hundreds years earlier and wasn’t complete for another four hundred.
Click to expand...
Have you read the accusations he gave of the Eastern Church in his excommunication? Most of it was rubbish. Though the estrangement between East and West cannot be attributed to him alone, he certainly had a large part in it.

Blessings
 
josephdaniel29 said:
I don’t seem to recall reading anything from the fathers about the ancient practice of holding clown Masses. I don’t know, maybe I missed something? 🤷:D:p
Click to expand...
Now, now. Don’t go blaming the Pope for these things.:tsktsk:

Blessings
 
WetCatechumen said:
His Eminence Cardinal Humbert deserves much more respect than you are giving him. Regardless of your personal distate for him, not only was he an Orthodox bishop (and Cardinal!) by your ecclesiology, he was no heresiarch. He was in no way the leader or initiator of any “Roman heresies”, least of all the schism.

The schism had started two hundreds years earlier and wasn’t complete for another four hundred.
Click to expand...
The Papal Bull he delivered insisted that the Greeks use the Greek version of the Filioque in the Creed, this Greek version of the Filioque has been acknowledged as heretical by JPII. Therefore either the pope whose name it was issued in was a heretic, or the author, Cardinal Humbert was. By his heresy he brought us the schism. I shall give him the same respect I give Arius or Nestorius.
 
Nine_Two said:
The Papal Bull he delivered insisted that the Greeks use the Greek version of the Filioque in the Creed, this Greek version of the Filioque has been acknowledged as heretical by JPII. Therefore either the pope whose name it was issued in was a heretic, or the author, Cardinal Humbert was. By his heresy he brought us the schism. I shall give him the same respect I give Arius or Nestorius.
Click to expand...
How about Pelagius, then, Nine_Two?rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Probably the Tallest Heretic EVER-----and from Brittania (England), a nation with a RICH History of Heresy (If you know what I mean?):bounce::whacky:

Ultimately, Each side made too many unreasonable demands of each other.
 
Nine_Two said:
The Papal Bull he delivered insisted that the Greeks use the Greek version of the Filioque in the Creed, this Greek version of the Filioque has been acknowledged as heretical by JPII.
Click to expand...
I am unfamiliar with either of these claims and would ask for some sources.
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother WetCatechumen,

Have you read the accusations he gave of the Eastern Church in his excommunication? Most of it was rubbish. Though the estrangement between East and West cannot be attributed to him alone, he certainly had a large part in it.

Blessings
Click to expand...
I have indeed read it, and Cardinal Humbert was clearly out of line.

He did have large part in it, however, he is not a heresiarch. That was the term I objected to the use of.

Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Calvin, Luther, - these men are heresiarchs. Cardinal Humbert was not only a Cardinal and a bishop in the Catholic Church who died in good standing, but a Cardinal and bishop of the Orthodox church as well.

While I do not object to criticism of his actions, he was not the author, founder, or perpetrator of any major heresy. Therefore, I cannot accept the use of the term “heresiarch” when referring to him.

If anyone is to be blamed for the “heresy” of the Filioque, it must be the fathers of the Council of Toledo. As for Papal Infallibility and Supremacy - there are many more people who that can be attributed to than Cardinal Humbert.
 
dvdjs said:
I am unfamiliar with either of these claims and would ask for some sources.
Click to expand...
Sorry, can’t find anything by JPII, however there is this article in the Vatican Newspaper, written by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Unity.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=34190325&CFTOKEN=32054876

While it doesn’t explicitly use the word “heresy”,it affirms that the Greek is specific in noting the Father as the point of origin, which is the correct dogma.

In other words, saying the son is the point of origin is error. Teaching this error would make one a heretic.
 
Pravoslavac said:
I’m not sure if you’re speaking from lack of knowledge but the problem was never primacy, but rather supremacy…which are two entirely different things. The media loves to misquote the reason for the schism.

I’m always reading on this board about JC saying Peter’s the rock upon which he’ll build His Church and that he’s given the ability to “bind and loose.” If you read further he then gives that same ability to bind and loose to the rest of the apostles. And for those of you who are not aware but the EO has apostolic success from Apostle Andrew, who if you apply the same notion, is able to “bind and loose” as well.

Rome always had undoubtedly a special place, but according to the first millenium no Patriarch (Bishop of Rome or Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc) was supreme over the other. They were all equals…but the bishop of Rome was considered the First Among Equals. Supremacy in the role of the bishop of rome was something that evolved in the church of the west, never among the remaining 4 Patriarchates of the original Taxis.

I would hope WetCatechumen that you would be a little more careful of what you’re posting. If unity is to ever truly happen, we all need to be harmonious in our thoughts and our comments.
Click to expand...
I was joking. As if anything Reuters says can be used as evidence in favor of the Catholic Church over the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Also, the Apostle Andrew never founded the See of Constantinople. Sorry, but that one is a myth. Furthermore, Jerusalem and Constantinople are not part of the original Patriarchates. It was Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch - in that order.

Furthermore, there are a whole host of issues you bring up that are being discussed by brighter, more dedicated, and holy men than I at this very moment, so I decline to discuss them at this time.
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
How about Pelagius, then, Nine_Two?rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Probably the Tallest Heretic EVER-----and from Brittania (England), a nation with a RICH History of Heresy (If you know what I mean?):bounce::whacky:

Ultimately, Each side made too many unreasonable demands of each other.
Click to expand...
It isn’t that his demand was unreasonable, it was that it was plain error.

What demands did the East make of the West? I don’t deny that the East and West mutually perpetrated crimes against each other, but I’m not aware of any unreasonable demands by the East, on the West.
 
Nine_Two said:
The Papal Bull he delivered insisted that the Greeks use the Greek version of the Filioque in the Creed, this Greek version of the Filioque has been acknowledged as heretical by JPII. Therefore either the pope whose name it was issued in was a heretic, or the author, Cardinal Humbert was. By his heresy he brought us the schism. I shall give him the same respect I give Arius or Nestorius.
Click to expand...
The one translation I could find says this on the Filioque:

"7. like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; "

I don’t know what word he used for “procession” in the text of the bull. Furthermore, I don’t know what language he was writing in.

The Latin Church has never held to the heresy that the Spirit has its ultimate origin in the Father and the Son. The Father is the source of all things. This makes me doubt that Cardinal Humbert was actually intending to enforce this heresy upon the Greeks.

In addition, I doubt Cardinal Humbert was the first person to try to force the use of the Filioque upon the Greeks - which prevents him from being the author of this belief.
 
WetCatechumen said:
The one translation I could find says this on the Filioque:

"7. like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; "

I don’t know what word he used for “procession” in the text of the bull. Furthermore, I don’t know what language he was writing in.

The Latin Church has never held to the heresy that the Spirit has its ultimate origin in the Father and the Son. The Father is the source of all things. This makes me doubt that Cardinal Humbert was actually intending to enforce this heresy upon the Greeks.

In addition, I doubt Cardinal Humbert was the first person to try to force the use of the Filioque upon the Greeks - which prevents him from being the author of this belief.
Click to expand...
The Father is the source of all things, and that is not in contention, I’m not sure why you brought it up when the question is the place of the son.

At any rate the East rejected the filioque just for that very understanding of things, and Eastern Catholic posters assure me that isn’t the Latin belief, because it most certainly is rejected by the East. I’m not going to go looking, I’ll let others do the legwork on what the West believes concerning the procession, but I repeat, the idea that the Holy Spirit has an origin in the Son is heretical.

As for Cardinal Humbert, he was the first to try to force the use of the Filioque on the Greeks. Unless you can find me an example of someone earlier, I’m going to have to stand by my original title for him. I wouldn’t put much effort into finding an earlier source though, if you find an earlier example I’ll admit I was wrong and switch to calling him a heretic instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top