Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

[ComeHome2Rome]

2. Liberalism

Also, many Catholics I know are very liberal in their view on religion and society but yet I greatly admire the local bishops who fight for Truth and Tradition against the ‘public opinion’. This I always greatly admired in Catholicism, if only the lay people would conform more to what their bishops teach .

A Church should be judged based on who established it and whether or not it has maintained faithful in handing down the teachings handed down beginning with the Apostles.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and has continued to faithfully preserve and teach the entire Faith, whole and unaltered, since the time of the Apostles down to the present day.

In the Catholic Church, we have so many faithful laypersons who are faithfully living up to the Catholic Church’s teachings. While it would be amazing, it is not realistic that 100% of the Catholic Church’s laity lived as they ought.

Each member of the Catholic Church is at a different level of their struggle, some are winning nearly every battle, while some are trying to fight without using all the weapons the Church provides, some are still in training and learning how to use the weapons the Church provides and some have simply given up the fight or don’t even have the desire to get into training.

We continue to pray for each other, the entire Church Militant.

If someone were to decide to join a church in which 100% of it’s members follow all of the teachings of it’s bishops, then that person would never join any church as such a church does not exist.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Jerusalem, surprisingly enough, wasn’t one of the three original sees.

Even today it doesn’t have much territory, compared to the other four Roman sees of its day which were massive.

Well, the practice of patriarchates date to 5th Century, before that they were Archbishops I think. St. Athanasius for example was never called Patriarch as far as I know.
But yes, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the three centers of Christianity and Jerusalem hadn’t even had metropolitan rights but had a place of honor.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Credo ergo sum;8983726]Roman Catholicism:

1. Liturgical innovations

Their new rite, the one from the '60’s, doesn’t really stand in liturgical tradition and some I’ve seen are very modern and do not include traditional hymns or Gregorian Chants. However, the ‘new’ liturgy with gregorian chants and being done in Latin is ten minutes on the bike away. But somehow the fact that it is sometimes done so ‘modern’ (I heard sometimes even with guitar music ) in the CC disturbs me.

Liturgical innovations? What is considered here in regards to the Catholic Liturgies has to do with what can be changed and what will never, and has never changed. The substance of the Liturgies cannot never be changed.

What has changed and will continue to change, are those things belonging to cultures, languages and understanding. The Roman Catholic Church with her authority with the Keys of Peter have the authority to bind and loose those things subject to change in the liturgy. Rest assured although the Catholic Church because she is Rock moves very slowly with those things subject to change in every age of language and cultures which has changed.

One cannot blame the Catholic Church for liturgical abuses, especially in a free society as America. Rome today is addressing those abuses and will continue to correct those liturgies that move away from the substance and context of the Apostolic liturgical revelations of the Mass.

The diversity of language, cultures and understandings revealed in the liturgies only help bring every nation, tongue, tribe and people to worship in unity from the same “unchanged” substance of the liturgy in understanding and worship from the diversed languages and cultures.

B]2. Liberalism

Also, many Catholics I know are very liberal in their view on religion and society but yet I greatly admire the local bishops who fight for Truth and Tradition against the ‘public opinion’. This I always greatly admired in Catholicism, if only the lay people would conform more to what their bishops teach .

The liberalism viewed from free societies can never change our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. Not even extreme conservatism can effect the Rock from changing. Disciplines and practices vary people to people, the Catholic Church has dealt with these in every age and those to come. Thank God for our Apostolic successors who are the shepherds God placed here in every age to guide, protect and teach our unchanging Catholic faith.

1. The Filioque.

The original creed (the one from 381, not 325) says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Latin West added ‘and from the Son’ so that now it says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Gospel of John (15:26), which the 381 creed quotes, says:

"even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: "

You must be corrected here; The original Creed was the Apostles Creed which predates the Nicene Creed. The Apostles Creed has always and still is professed in Roman Catholic liturgies and rites. You can’t get any more “Orthodox” than the Apostles Creed professed in the Roman Catholic Church.

What is telling here is that the Nicene Creed was introduced by the Catholic Church in order to defeat heresy among her members. Later the Filioque was introduced to defeat the Eastern heresy infecting the Western Church, which it did.

What the Orthodox object too is not necessary the “filioque” but the authority of the keys excercised by the Popes to use the “filioque” to defeat their own hersey. By professing Jesus divinity, when heretics were denying Jesus divinity. One should call to the front today most Orthodox scholars today do not object to the “filioque” definition.

The filioque is not a cause for division, here is my “thought” on the matter;

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, how difficult is it to conceive while the Spirit is proceeding through the Son that the Spirit has proceeded and also from the Son. When man receives the Spirit via the Sacraments the Spirit proceeds from God and also from the Son.

When God acts from his Trinitarian God head as in the blessed Virgin Mary in conceiving the Word. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

After the Incarnation the Spirit reaches our humanity from the Father and also the Son (Word made flesh) via sacramentally which is substantially real. Including the blessed Sacrament in the Eucharist

The Gospels do not contradict for all three persons are One God.

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you.e But if I go, I will send him to you

Besides who dares to try and define God anyway? The Church only teaches and hands down to us what she has been revealed to her and given to her from Jesus and the apostles. She councils and defines Apostolic revelations and teachings to defeat heresy and those every wind of doctrine of men who deny the revelations of Jesus Christ.

cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

B]4. Papal Infallibilty and Papal Supremecy

From the Church History I read it seems to me that, especially in the first millenium, the Pope wasn’t an ‘ecclesiastical dictator’ (excuse me for the term) but that the Church was governed with councils, local as well as Ecumenical ones.

Any one who refutes the authority of Peter’s chair has to take up with Jesus, not those who oppose Peter’s chair; History proves that both secular and religious vied for this authority Jesus placed in Peter’s office, although the gates of hell came against Peter and will continue to come against Peter, so long as He follows Jesus the gates of hell will never prevail.

Matthew 16:17Jesus said to him in reply,… 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”**

John 21;15…, **Jesus said to Simon Peter,… “Feed my lambs.” 16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John,…“Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John,… “Feed my sheep.”… **19He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was even held in opposition to the Pope and a former pope, the heretic Honorius, was even anathemised, because he confessed, in an official letter concerning faith and morals, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the monothelite heresy

.

Any history that objected to the Popes in Peter’s chair, will always reveal hidden secular Emperors and powers making influences to oppose the Popes, including the Fifth Ecumenical councils called by secular Emperors and Patriarchs of Constantinople with the Emperors powerful influences could not usurp the Popes authority although the Patriarch of Constantinople had usurped other Apostolic sees with the emperors influences.

The second Ecumenical council was presided by St. Meletius of Antioch, a bishop in schism from Rome at the time. In a huge fight between St. Cyprian of Carthage and the Pope, St. Cyprian called in the East and won the fight and the list goes on and on.

**The Second Ecumenical councils findings;

“We will that all the peoples who are ruled by the authority of our clemency shall hold to the religion which the Divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, and which is recognized by his having preserved it there until the present day, and which it is known that the Pontiff Damasus follows…”**You are aware during all the liturgies the apostolic successors of Peter in the Popes names were included in them? Something that reveals a long and everlasting Orthodox view of the Popes authority before any schism.

You do know that St.Cyprian wanted to re-baptise penitent apostates and heretics? St.Pope Stephen refused and contested St.Cyprian trying to rebaptise fallen away Catholics and it is St.Pope Stephens ruling that one the day and still holds true to today, because there is NO RE-BAPTISM OF VALIDLY BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS.

And if there is Papal Infallibilty, why then was there the need to hold the 7 Ecumenical Councils if an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope would have sufficed? Why the 4th Ecumenical Council if the Tome of Leo was already written years earlier? It seems to me that both Papal Supremecy and Infallibilty or Universal Jurisdiction were never universally accepted in the in the pre-schism Church, but please, correct me if I’m wrong, for this are only some of my impressions.

Papal infallibility was never in question nor in need of pronouncement when the whole Church was unified with the Popes during these times. St.Leo begins to return the Apostolic authority because the Eastern Emperor has appointed a new non-apostolic see in his Patriarch of Constantinople who was usurping other Apostolic sees. You do know that the Patriarch of Constantinople is never an “Apostolic see”? but an “ecclessial office” that can be removed or replaced?

I believe during these early councils after the Eastern Emperor established his Patriarch in Constantinople, secular political powers began to influence the powers of the Patriarch of Constantinople to compete or object to the Popes authority. It is here I believe when one should look at this history and separate what belongs to God give to God and what belongs to Ceasar give to Ceasar. The problems here was that Ceasar and his patriarch were both trying to grab what belonged to God in the office of Peter presided in the Popes who became Martyrs and Saints.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

**
5. Development of Doctrine and Scholasticism.**
I don’t think that anyone knows the faith better than the Apostles, the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils; therefore I don’t believe that our ‘understandings’ develops and this theory leads to unwarrented innovation

.

**Really? Then why did the Early Church councils “INNOVATED AN UNWARRANTED NOTION AND NEW DOCTRINE CALLED TRINITY”? **Scholasticism is never a doctrine, someone has decieved you here. Scholasticsm is a teaching discipline used to discover and arrive at Truth. Scholasticsm is still used by the FBI and court room proceedings today.

Also I don’t think that the Mysteries of the Faith ( the almost scientific definition of transsubstantion) can be described or even determined the way the (hyper-)scholastics like St. Thomas Aquinas did it. But I guess lots of Eastern Catholics think the same as I do on this one

That’s because you have been misinformed. Transubstantiation is only confirming a “change”. Trans. never attempts to define a mystery nor describe the mystery, the term only defends the Apostolic faith that “a change” defined by Trans. refutes all scientific notions who tried to disprove the real presence of the Eucharist.

If your interested, I could share with you how Orthodox who oppose Trans. get it wrong every time because they never describe the true definition of transubstantiation that the Catholic uses to defend the real presence in the Eucharist.

B]6. The replacement of the Septuagint with the Hebrew OT since St. Jerome

Why didn’t you listen to St. Augustine? The LXX is the Christian OT, used by the Apostles and the entire Church up until St. Jerome decided to translate the Hebrew OT and the West decided to use his Vulgate over the Vetus Latina. Besides, the Vulgate OT is inconsequent for using the LXX in some verses (for example Daniel, Esther and some psalms) and the Hebrew OT in the other verses. Modern Catholic Bibles even use the antichristian Masoretic Text which was made by Jews some 800-900 years after Christ. This is a huge shame. Sorry if this sounds somewhat antisemitic, that is not my intention.

Wow, you apparently have been informed by only one side to these issues, which are related to biblical scholars, who never dictate the Apostolic faith. So this one sided argument has nothing to do with the Apostolic faith practiced and believed in by the Roman Catholic Church IMHO.

This argument cannot and will not ever refute or discredit the authentic Canon list of books the Catholic Church canonized. These were much closer to the books and authors than any argument or biblical scholar could ever wish to be. These are not arguments, what you pose are “opinions” not faith.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was even held in opposition to the Pope and a former pope, the heretic Honorius, was even anathemised, because he confessed, in an official letter concerning faith and morals, to the Patriarch of Constantinople, the monothelite heresy

Facts; Honorius was proclaimed a heretic 40 years long after this death, from “personal” letters to the existing heretical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Honorius was not made a heretic while he lived because he never publicly proclaimed to teach or hold to a heretical heresy from the East. His personal letters 40 years after he was buried convicted him.

Heretics from the East producing Honorius’s personal letters to the Church, try to prove and justify their heretical views as being supported by a Pope Honorius. These Eastern heretics along with their Pope Honorius “personal letters” were both labeled heretics and excommunicated from the Church.

The council was not gonna have any support of a heresy, especially from a dead Pope Honorius (personal letters only) who could not defend himself.

The councils findings have nothing to do with the Popes presiding in Peter’s chair, nor his office of infallibility to teach on faith and morals to the whole church.

This argument deals with a 40 year old dead defensless Honorius personal letters, which heretics used to state their heretical views to a church council. This ruling does not deal with the office of the Popes. But reveals Eastern heretics trying to use the Popes recognized authoritative office to side with their heretical views. The council saw through all these loops and disowned all parties including Honorius’s personal letters produced by the Heretics.

 

[Trebor135]

Facts; Honorius was proclaimed a heretic 40 years long after this death, from “personal” letters to the existing heretical Patriarch of Constantinople.

Honorius was not made a heretic while he lived because he never publicly proclaimed to teach or hold to a heretical heresy from the East. His personal letters 40 years after he was buried convicted him.

Heretics from the East producing Honorius’s personal letters to the Church, try to prove and justify their heretical views as being supported by a Pope Honorius. These Eastern heretics along with their Pope Honorius “personal letters” were both labeled heretics and excommunicated from the Church.

The council was not gonna have any support of a heresy, especially from a dead Pope Honorius (personal letters only) who could not defend himself.

The councils findings have nothing to do with the Popes presiding in Peter’s chair, nor his office of infallibility to teach on faith and morals to the whole church.

This argument deals with a 40 year old dead defensless Honorius personal letters, which heretics used to state their heretical views to a church council. This ruling does not deal with the office of the Popes. But reveals Eastern heretics trying to use the Popes recognized authoritative office to side with their heretical views. The council saw through all these loops and disowned all parties including Honorius’s personal letters produced by the Heretics.

If Pope Leo’s tome to the Council of Chalcedon proclaiming orthodox doctrine can be called an ex cathedra statement as some do, so should the “personal letters” of Pope Honorius appearing to officially teach heresy…

And if Pope Leo’s tome was not an exercise of papal infallibility, the question arises (to those who chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy after a long period of prayer and study): were there ever any such declarations in the first millennium of Christianity?

 

[Nine_Two]

I fail to see the reason for your objection, “Except…”

You can’t possibly mean that the Church had no organization or that the depiction I gave isn’t of the most ancient antiquity we know of for describing the Church Militant as an organization. Clearly that was the organization, with the minor differences from the general picture, so to speak, you mentioned.

You know Tradition recognized three Sees as bearing special significance from the earliest times: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, with others growing up later.

Those were the oldest in the Roman world. But I object to the idea that three were chosen as one per continent, since the lines of division between them didn’t follow continents.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Hello,

I have some problems, whether I become Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The first part is what my story is, the second what my questions and problems with both churches are, would you be so kind to help me with them and give your explanations to my problems

Since childhood I held to protestant beliefs and looked down upon catholic teaching and thought, for example, that statues or icons were all idolatry and thought the notion of the Real Presence was insane, like most calvinists do, this was even taught in school.

One day I stumble upon a little book called “Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images”, written by a certain John of Damascus, who, within a few pages of reading, convinced me that all what I’d heard or thought about icons and statues were all wrong! God even ordered the making of statues, images testified to the Incarnation and some old testament persons even ‘worshipped’ (proskynesis, not latreia) evil men. Thus, images of Christ and of the saints are not bad. After reading the book my world was upside down. Could it then be, I said to myself, that the Catholics are right about more things and I’m just wrong? If they can be right on this fundamental doctrine, they could be right about more things.

Not before long I was reading all I can about Church History and the Fathers, looking especially towards the earlier ones. One day I was at home, sick in bed, and started reading some of the earliest Chuch Fathers, and then I read a book called the “Martyrdom of Ignatius”. In chapter 6 I read:

"For only the harder portions of his holy remains were left, which were conveyed to Antioch and wrapped in linen, as an inestimable treasure left to the holy Church by the grace which was in the martyr."

Wow, I thought, relics in early Christianity! Later I learned that the date of his martyrdom could be even before the closing of the first century! How interesting! I though, maybe I could read some of this man’s writing, that would be a way to know exactly what and how these men, taught by the Apostles themselves, believed! So I went on to read some of his epistles. On of the first I read was the “Epistle to the Smyrnaeans”. In that I read:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes""

The early christians did, unlike I was taught, believe in the Real Presence! And I read in the New Testament that: “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. (John 6:53-57)”

So, if the Eucharist is literally and not symbolically the Body of Christ, and unless I partake of it I will have no life in me, I though it might be a good idea to join the Church which, to this day, teaches these doctrines and gives these sacraments. I continued to read the works of the Church Fathers, and from St. Polycarp and St. Justin Martyr to St. John of Damascus, almost everything seemed to agree with Catholic doctrine and everyone with key doctrines. So then I tried to find this “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” against which the Gates of Hell will never prevail, and this has been the hard part for me.

I started to do some research, and I thought I’d had cut down the list to two communions. The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Catholic (Eastern Orthodox) Churches. Both can lay claim to being the Church founded on pentecost in 33AD, both can trace the lines of their bishops back to the Apostles and both retain basically the same teaching. Both have their problems however.

I have been in beautiful Catholic Cathedrals many times, and a few months ago I went to Greece and there I saw some Orthodox Churches and monasteries. I must confess that I had never seen such beauty before! I knew not whether I was in heaven or on earth. Be it in small village churches or great monasteries, I was awestruck and had never see such greatness before. I have a great weakness to Eastern Christianity and can look hours to icons, my sleeping room is too small for all the icons I now have .

Anyway, this is how I came to the conclusion that either the Catholic or the Orthodox Church is the True Church.

Have you looked into The Catholic Church, (Eastern Rite), such as Byzantine, Coptic, etc? Not trying to confuse thing even farther, and I myself am Latin rite. It just seems that Eastern rite Catholicism might be right up your alley. An eastern liturgy, icons, etc., while still acknowledging the chair of St. Peter. Just a thought. One you may wish to discern before finding a parish to enroll in the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. Do you have any Eastern rite Catholic parishes in your community? Experience the liturgy a few times in a Latin and an Eastern environment. Just a thought. May God bless you, and the Holy Spirit lead you in your discernment.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If Pope Leo’s tome to the Council of Chalcedon proclaiming orthodox doctrine can be called an ex cathedra statement as some do, so should the “personal letters” of Pope Honorius appearing to officially teach heresy…

And if Pope Leo’s tome was not an exercise of papal infallibility, the question arises (to those who chose Catholicism over Orthodoxy after a long period of prayer and study): were there ever any such declarations in the first millennium of Christianity?

I have to disagree with you. Pope Leo living at the time, addressing a council, is not the same as a 40 year old DEAD Popes personal letter addressed to a personal correspondent. Pope Leo addresses the whole church in council, while a popes personal letter to a personal correspondent does not reach the capacity of council recognition as addressing the whole Church.

Finally 40 years after the dead popes personal letter reaches a Church council, it is never Pope Honorius personally himself who addresses the council with a letter. His personal letter reaches the council long after he is dead, and it is heretics who bring the dead popes personal correspondent letter to the floor.

So I would have to disagree with you that the popes personal letter never speaks from the capacity of ex-cathedra or from an official teaching addressing the whole Church as an official stance from the chair of Peter.

Infallibility is recognized and accepted by each council which every Pope ratified, including the canonization of the bible books, without any council ever having to define or use the term “infallibility.” A council’s decree protected from error in the Holy Spirit is infallible, which has the ratification of the popes.

Infallibility from the Pope is done based on faith and morals which is protected 3 fold, by Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Holy Spirit.

The first infallible statement made from Peter during apostolic times was at the council of Jerusalem. After heaven revealed to Peter alone to allow the gentiles into the Church. Peter revealed this infallible teaching from heaven to the first Church council. This :“infallible” teaching revealed from Peter was never contested by the council, nor did the council question Peter’s teaching from heaven as being infallible, because Infallibility of Peter’s teaching was already accepted as infallible.

What was discussed was whether or not the baptized Gentiles should be circumcised. Peter declared “NO”, the Gentiles are not to be hindered with circumcision, when all fell silent, followed by witnesses such as Paul who was allowing Gentiles into the Church without circumcision.

There is much to discuss about what information leads up to a councils official decree and when a Pope ratifies a councils findings. What is contained in the decree is not necessarily infallible or binding on the Church, only what comes after the official decree is made.

So just reading a Church councils decree, or reading letters from Popes addressing a council does not necessarily make the popes letter addressing a council “infallible”. More details are required in order to accurate make an assertion of any popes letter or writings addressing a council.

 

[Marocchino]

Dear OP,

As one who faced the same dilemma, I can sympathize with your perplexity. I decided to accept Catholicism because of its consistent moral stand on issues such as artificial contraception and divorce. I choose to attend only the Traditional Latin Mass because, like you, I love tradition and cannot stomach liturgical innovation and liberalism. My advice would be, if you are drawn to Byzantine expressions of Christianity yet become convinced of Catholicism, attend Mass at an Eastern Catholic parish. I will offer two articles for your consideration in making your decision. May God guide you.

rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison (scroll down for this article)
waragainstbeing.com/partiii

 

[GaryTaylor]

Besides, I’m only 17 years old

DO YOU LIVE WITH YOUR PARENTS? Perhaps out of Respect it should be them you are talking to. Continue to pray the Lord will guide you.

Peace

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

DO YOU LIVE WITH YOUR PARENTS? Perhaps out of Respect it should be them you are talking to. Continue to pray the Lord will guide you.

Peace

They are neither Catholic or Orthodox, my dad is a ‘nothing’ and my mom is a very liberal protestant who doesn’t attend church.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, how difficult is it to conceive while the Spirit is proceeding through the Son that the Spirit has proceeded and also from the Son. When man receives the Spirit via the Sacraments the Spirit proceeds from God and also from the Son.

Eternal procession is not the same as temporal procession.

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is better for you that I go. For if I do not go, the Advocate will not come to you.But if I go, I will send him to you

Eternal procession is not the same as temporal procession.

Besides who dares to try and define God anyway? The Church only teaches and hands down to us what she has been revealed to her and given to her from Jesus and the apostles. She councils and defines Apostolic revelations and teachings to defeat heresy and those every wind of doctrine of men who deny the revelations of Jesus Christ.

I would agree with you there.
Gabriel of 12:

Any history that objected to the Popes in Peter’s chair, will always reveal hidden secular Emperors and powers making influences to oppose the Popes, including the Fifth Ecumenical councils called by secular Emperors and Patriarchs of Constantinople with the Emperors powerful influences could not usurp the Popes authority although the Patriarch of Constantinople had usurped other Apostolic sees with the emperors influences.

Are you doubting an Ecumenical Council? And one of the essential one at that? Besides, during the iconoclast controversy the EP did usurp some of Rome’s power, like jurisdiction over Greece and southern Italy.
Gabriel of 12:

You are aware during all the liturgies the apostolic successors of Peter in the Popes names were included in them? Something that reveals a long and everlasting Orthodox view of the Popes authority before any schism.

Yes, and I believe they commemorate other patriarchs and metropolitans as well during the liturgy.
Gabriel of 12:

You do know that St.Cyprian wanted to re-baptise penitent apostates and heretics? St.Pope Stephen refused and contested St.Cyprian trying to rebaptise fallen away Catholics and it is St.Pope Stephens ruling that one the day and still holds true to today, because there is NO RE-BAPTISM OF VALIDLY BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS.

AFAIK the Orthodox Church (or some parts of it - not all) baptize Christians former baptised in the CC/Protestant Churches because they doubt that the sacrament was valid. But please, correct me if I’m wrong
Gabriel of 12:

You do know that the Patriarch of Constantinople is never an “Apostolic see”? but an “ecclessial office” that can be removed or replaced?

Well, why didn’t that happen during the Iconoclast Controversy when Pope and Patriarch battled eachother for some 50 years
Gabriel of 12:

Really? Then why did the Early Church councils “INNOVATED AN UNWARRANTED NOTION AND NEW DOCTRINE CALLED TRINITY”?

Because part of the Church was openly doubting the divinity of Christ, duh
Gabriel of 12:

Scholasticsm is a teaching discipline used to discover and arrive at Truth. Scholasticsm is still used by the FBI and court room proceedings today.

Religion is not a court case.
Gabriel of 12:

That’s because you have been misinformed. Transubstantiation is only confirming a “change”. Trans. never attempts to define a mystery nor describe the mystery, the term only defends the Apostolic faith that “a change” defined by Trans. refutes all scientific notions who tried to disprove the real presence of the Eucharist.

If your interested, I could share with you how Orthodox who oppose Trans. get it wrong every time because they never describe the true definition of transubstantiation that the Catholic uses to defend the real presence in the Eucharist.

What I was talking about is that hyperscolasticsm (the bread becomes the Body of Christ *exactly *the moment the bell rinkles, not sooner, not later). This is weird and has its origins in the 13th-14th century. Yes, the bread DOES become the Flesh of Christ, but we aren’t able to t**ime it with a stopwatch or something. And who would even want that
Gabriel of 12:

Wow, you apparently have been informed by only one side to these issues, which are related to biblical scholars, who never dictate the Apostolic faith. So this one sided argument has nothing to do with the Apostolic faith practiced and believed in by the Roman Catholic Church IMHO.

This argument cannot and will not ever refute or discredit the authentic Canon list of books the Catholic Church canonized. These were much closer to the books and authors than any argument or biblical scholar could ever wish to be. These are not arguments, what you pose are “opinions” not faith.

The LXX was the version used by the Apostles and all the Fathers up to St. Jerome in the 5th century, so the LXX is Apostolic. Afterwards the Roman Catholic Church continued to use a translation of the LXX, the Vetus Latina translations, up until the 800’s-900’s. And even up till now, many psalms and hymns come from the Vetus Latina instead of the Vulgate (For example gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis from the Vetus Latina compared to gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax in hominibus bonæ voluntatis from the Vulgate). This shows that the Vulgate took long to be accepted in the Western Church, don’t you think?

Infact, switching to the Hebrew is what made St. Jerome doubt the validity of the Deuterocanon, the use of the LXX by the Apostles and the ECF’s is what kept them in the canon. So, in a sense the LXX confirms the Catholic faith more then the (proto-)Masoretic texts.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Credo ergo sum;8987414]Eternal procession is not the same as temporal procession.

Eternal procession is not the same as temporal procession

.

What? temporal procession? that is heresy in the least. Someone has dupped you or poisoned your reasoning in regards to the blessed Trinity. There is no such thing as the Holy Spirit temporal procession in the blessed Trinity.

How in the world do you justify the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Blessed Trinity temporally?

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

.

What? temporal procession? that is heresy in the least. Someone has dupped you or poisoned your reasoning in regards to the blessed Trinity. There is no such thing as the Holy Spirit temporal procession in the blessed Trinity.

How in the world do you justify the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Blessed Trinity temporally?

Jesus, the incarnate Logos, sends the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, to us. This doesn´t say that the Son is the Eternal Cause , or the aitian in Greek, of the Holy Spirit, but that Jesus sends us the Parakletos. St. Maximus the Confessor said that the filioque could only be justified when we see the Father alone, and not the Son, as aitian, or Eternal Cause, of the Holy Spirit.

St. John of Damascus says (De Fide Orthodoxia): “We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son.”

.

What? temporal procession? that is heresy in the least.

Why? I read it in the writings of St. Photius of Constantinople, an 9th century Patriarch of Constantinople, Eastern Catholics AFAIK see him as a saint.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

This is an explanation of the term ‘temporal procession’ I used.

(a) The passages where Christ says that he will send the Spirit from the Father (John 15:26; 16:7); and that the Father will send the Spirit in Christ’s name (14:26); and where he breathes the Spirit on his disciples (20:22). The Greeks refer all these passages to the temporal mission of the Spirit, and understand the insufflation to be simply a symbolical act or sacramental sign of the pentecostal effusion which Christ had promised.

(Taken from History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073.)

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus, the incarnate Logos, sends the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, to us. This doesn´t say that the Son is the Eternal Cause , or the aitian in Greek, of the Holy Spirit, but that Jesus sends us the Parakletos. St. Maximus the Confessor said that the filioque could only be justified when we see the Father alone, and not the Son, as aitian, or Eternal Cause, of the Holy Spirit.

St. John of Damascus says (De Fide Orthodoxia): “We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son.”

These quotes do not support your false position of a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit.

Things to consider when contemplating this mystery;

The Holy Spirit is God. Yet you attempt to divide the Holy Spirit from the Godhead?

Tertullian quotes “…was nailed to the cross; rose again the third day; was taken up to heaven, and sat down a the right hand of the Father; sent in His stead the power of the Holy Spirit, to work upon believers”…

St. Hilary will help you, so that you don’t pit Early Church Fathers “opinions” with the rest of the Catholic Church and try to divide the God head… **" Consequently, He recieves from the Son who has been sent by Him and who proceeds from the Father. And I raise the question whether it is the same to recieve from the Son as to proceed from the Father? But, if we must hold that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, then, certainly, we shall have to admit that it is one and the same to receive from the Son as it is to receive the Father"…/B]

What you falsely argue is not the “filioque” that unites all the Early Church Fathers. What you pretend to argue is that dividing the Blessed Trinity, which the “filioque” never does.

Some one has lied to you in regards to this Trinity doctrine. The “Fiioque” never attempts to divide the God head, as your arguments appear to falsify.

When you take St. Maximus and St. John of Damascus out of context as you falsly did. You contradict and pit these ECF’s with other ECF’s who were contemporaries in unity.

When you quote a Saint. You should consider the whole Church in view. Not just an isolated opinion twisted to your likings.**

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

The Holy Spirit is God. Yet you attempt to divide the Holy Spirit from the Godhead

No, I divide nothing. The Holy Spirit is God.

What you falsely argue is not the “filioque” that unites all the Early Church Fathers.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox then stray by not accepting the filioque in the creed? Are they heretics?

One question, does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son the same way as it does from the Father or is it different?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is an explanation of the term ‘temporal procession’ I used.

(a) The passages where Christ says that he will send the Spirit from the Father (John 15:26; 16:7); and that the Father will send the Spirit in Christ’s name (14:26); and where he breathes the Spirit on his disciples (20:22). The Greeks refer all these passages to the temporal mission of the Spirit, and understand the insufflation to be simply a symbolical act or sacramental sign of the pentecostal effusion which Christ had promised.

(Taken from History of the Christian Church, Volume IV: Mediaeval Christianity. A.D. 590-1073.)

No,no,no…We are not discussing the mission of sending the Holy Spirit. We are discussing the “filioque” and the procession of the HolySpirit which is eternal, the Trinity is One God. If you apply a temporal procession of the Holy Spirit in the God head, then God is not God, which is heresy.

You appear to be doing what most Orthodox continue to do here, comparing apples to oranges again. No wonder you are undecided, you view the Roman Cathoilc Church from the eyes of those who oppose her apostolic defense of the revelations of Jesus Christ.

Instead of allowing the HolySpirit to see you through this. If you think arguments of opposition to the revelations of Jesus Christ can change what God has joined together? You seeking from a carnal understanding of the mysteries of God instead of listening to the Holy Spirit.