Debating the filioque

[spina1953]

n post #458 on the Newman queston, I thought based upon my own reading that he was aman seeking turth, and over time and trough his own studies, he decided that he found the truth to be in the Catholic Church. In some of my posts I have quoted some Scripture to base my understanding on the issues being discussed.

 

[spina1953]

I like what was said in post #460 and it makes sense to me.

 

[spina1953]

I think that the Post#462 makes a good argument! As to doctrines, It seems to me if doctrines are truth of what one believes, it seems to me that a doctrine is a teaching of principles of revealed truth. Since a revealed truth must remain truth, it stands to reason that in each generation to the next seeks a better understanding of the truth revealed in which a doctrine explains.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree with Post #456 with the primises made.

OK fair enough, and I probably should remain quiet, but anyway, St Peter and the Apostles, would you suppose the Apostle Peter viewed himself as supreme authority? I mean think about this relationship here with for example the Apostle Paul. What I’m saying, is it difficult to discern from a perspective of love?

 

[spina1953]

About post # 479----- I do not supose anything. I rather doubt that St. Peter even really wanted to be a leader or even thought that he was the all powerful one. I like to think that he was friends with the rest of the Apostles and most likely did not or had no need to tell them what to preach or teach. but only guided them as they asked for guidance. I do think that he understood his postition as the leader and spokeperson for all the Apostls because they wanted him to be.

 

[spina1953]

I like post #469 winning the argument and the scoring of points. I agree in that for me it has never been about winning the argument or about trying to score points, but diologue and about whether or not the Orthodox and the Catholic Church will be able to one day in the future to unite ornot.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I rather doubt that St. Peter even really wanted to be a leader or even thought that he was the all powerful one. I like to think that he was friends with the rest of the Apostles and most likely did not or had no need to tell them what to preach or teach. but only guided them as they asked for guidance. I do think that he understood his postition as the leader and spokeperson for all the Apostls because they wanted him to be.

I agree.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think that the Post#462 makes a good argument! As to doctrines, It seems to me if doctrines are truth of what one believes, it seems to me that a doctrine is a teaching of principles of revealed truth. Since a revealed truth must remain truth, it stands to reason that in each generation to the next seeks a better understanding of the truth revealed in which a doctrine explains.

:clapping:

Well said. BTW, this will help:

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text. To begin a quote, you must insert {quote} at the beginning of the passage and {/quote} at the end. The / is the key to ending the quoted section. Here’s what it would look like:

{quote} Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, {/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote} and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put. {/quote} Hope this helps.

Remember, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ] so that the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

 

[spina1953]

:clapping:

Well said. BTW, this will help:

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text. To begin a quote, you must insert {quote} at the beginning of the passage and {/quote} at the end. The / is the key to ending the quoted section. Here’s what it would look like:

{quote} Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, {/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote} and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put. {/quote} Hope this helps.

Remember, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ] so that the paragraph above comes out like this:

I’m inserting my comments here in red. Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

Randy Cason: Thank you for your information about how to respond and use the Forum quote Function. I did not know that or how to use it. It might take me awhile to get used to it and to remember to use it and all that you said in how to use the brackets etc. However, sometimes the quotes are so long I did not feel I had to quote the whole of it in order to reply to it. If that is incorrect of me please forgive as I am new to these Forums. Sometimes I just like to agree or make a small comment as to what I have read and think about what had been said. So I hope that you will bare with me till I start getting it right. Again thanks for the advice I appreciate it. Also wht does BTW stand for?

 

[Randy_Carson]

However, sometimes the quotes are so long I did not feel I had to quote the whole of it in order to reply to it.

Delete our the part you don’t…like I just did.

Also wht does BTW stand for?

By The Way.

And don’t forget…you can preview a post to make sure it looks right or even edit your own post for up to 20 minutes it looks and says exactly the way you want it to.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I wrote,
Let me put it plainly there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will give up its centuries old conciliar system to submit to papal domination. I believe that it is very dangerous to give the kind of power to one man as has been given to the Pope

This is a response of fear and not of love or of truth.

I RESPOND: You are partially right, I fear giving too much power and authority to one person. In another I disagree that I am wrong. I love the truth and believe that the truth is found in the Faith of the ancient undivided Church and expressed by the 7 Ecumenical Councils, which do not recognize the universal jurisdiction of Rome or give Rome the authority to unilaterally make decisions on the doctrine of the Church. That is why they had the Ecumenical Councils which met to resolve doctrinal controversies and at times did not hesitate to correct the Bishops of Rome as the example of Canon 28 of Chalcedon and the demand that Pope Vigilius accept the decisions of the 5th Council or face excommunication, and the condemnation of Pope Honorius for heresy at the 6th Council show. The 7 Ecumenical Councils are the foundation of the Eastern Orthodox Faith. Why should we give up centuries of rule by councils to submit to papal domination? It would make more sense historically for the Pope to return to the status he occupied before 1054.

Yes you do believe that. But you were answered by Newman (whom you dismissed as a liberal Protestant) who explained why a “modern” papacy would have been unknown to an “ancient” Church father, and by Frank J. Sheed who explained in simple terms why doctrine develops as a natural process of reasoning and praying about divine revelation.

I RESPOND: I did not dismiss Newman as a liberal Protestant. I wrote that his reasoning leads to liberal Protestantism, which I do believe. If the doctrine of papal supremacy developed as a result of divine revelation, why did God not reveal this to the East? If papal supremacy were really the will of God, He would have revealed it to the entire Church not just to Popes desiring to increase their own power and authority. One major difference between the East and the West is that the East does not share the faith in human reason that has played such an important role in the development of Western theology. We firmly believe that it is a terrible mistake to trust in the limited ability of human reason to comprehend the mysteries of God. If a doctrine was unknown in the ancient Church, we Orthodox must reject it, because it is a man made doctrine.

You have no answers other than to sputter that you don’t agree. Oh, and “7 Councils, 7 Councils, 7 Councils…”.

Now, turn your attention to the Fathers I quoted.

Peter is the Rock. Peter is the Royal Steward.

I have written numerous times that the ancient Church recognized Peter and his successors in Rome having a primacy of honor, but not of jurisdiction. The canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils mandate regional self rule and mandate that a Patriarch must abide by the will of the synod of Bishops of the Patriarchate.

Canon IX of the Council of Antioch of 341 establishes the principle of regional self rule and makes no mention of any international authority held by Rome.
.
It behoves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

This canon ratifies the conciliar method of administraiton that Eastern Orthodox still follow. In time the Metropolitans were called Patriarchs in the East and Pope in the West. Notice that the Metropolitan must not administer his metropolis “without the consent” of the other Bishops.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

In reading some of the posts it seems to me and that at least one says that there will never be union between the Orthodx Church and rthe Catholic Church. I remind all that there has been in the past many Orthodox based Churches that have come into communion with Rome. In the end it is not for to say that the Orthodox will never come into communion with Rome, but it is up to those with the authoruty to make it so.

Someone posted quotes from the canon law for the Eastern Churches proclaimed by Rome. There is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will accept the kind of papal domination expressed in these canons because it would mean rejecting our conciliar model for a papal absolute monarchy.
The position of the Easter Catholic Churches in union with Rome only adds to the division between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches may use the Byzantine Liturgy, but we cannot consider them Orthodox. I know that they claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, but we are the Eastern Orthodox Church and reject that claim.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

I RESPOND: You are partially right,

Well, that’s a start.

I only have two questions for you at this point, Father John.

1. 
   *]Based on the patristic evidence I submitted (confirmed by Cavaradossi), can you accept that Peter is the rock?
   
   *]Based on the arguments I presented (also confirmed by Cavaradossi), can you acknowledge that doctrine does develop?(And please note that development does not mean that the add novelties to the faith delivered once for all to the saints. It means we see things in that revelation that were not previously see.)
   
   Thanks.

 

[spina1953]

Delete our the part you don’t…like I just did.

By The Way.

And don’t forget…you can preview a post to make sure it looks right or even edit your own post for up to 20 minutes it looks and says exactly the way you want it to.

Thanks for the advice. I did use the edit button as I sometimes have trouble hitting the right keys when I type and that is because I am not a very good typist to say the least.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Well, that’s a start.

I only have two questions for you at this point, Father John.

1. 
   *]Based on the patristic evidence I submitted (confirmed by Cavaradossi), can you accept that Peter is the rock?
   
   *]Based on the arguments I presented (also confirmed by Cavaradossi), can you acknowledge that doctrine does develop?(And please note that development does not mean that the add novelties to the faith delivered once for all to the saints. It means we see things in that revelation that were not previously see.)
   
   Thanks.

1. 
   I can accept Peter as the rock in the sense that he was the leader of the Apostles and the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:20
   “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”
   
   Doctrine can only develop only in the sense that we have sometimes clarify what the Church teaches to respond to various new and heretical teachings. However, doctrine does not develop in such a way that contradicts what the Church has always believed. Once again if the doctrine of papal supremacy were a legitimate development, the entire Church would have embraced it. Instead, the West developed this particular doctrine and tried to force it on the East. Because papal supremacy contradicted what the Church already believed and directly contradicted the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the East rejected this new and novel doctrine.
   The concept of development of doctrine can be very dangerous, because all doctrine must be firmly grounded in the Faith of the ancient undivided Church and accepted by the entire Church. The concept of development of doctrine is what has led to the apostasy of modern American liberal Protestantism with women’s ordination and blessing same sex unions.
   
   Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

Someone posted quotes from the canon law for the Eastern Churches proclaimed by Rome. There is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will accept the kind of papal domination expressed in these canons because it would mean rejecting our conciliar model for a papal absolute monarchy.
The position of the Easter Catholic Churches in union with Rome only adds to the division between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches may use the Byzantine Liturgy, but we cannot consider them Orthodox. I know that they claim to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, but we are the Eastern Orthodox Church and reject that claim.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I have to disagree as I believe that it will be up to those in authority to decide the issues in question. Not you or me. It is just your opinion that the Orthodox Church will never agree or come into union with Rome. Only time will tell as to who is correct. I do not know all of the issues that kept some of the Churches out of union with Rome, but I understand that what ever those issues were, they resolved them and came back into union with Rome. As for those Eastern Orthodox Churches, whom you say, which is your opinion that “we cannot consider them Orthodox” that remained in union with Rome, my guess is that they might disagree with you on that point that thy are not Orthodox; Orthodox meaning right teaching and they must think that what they teach is the same as what Rome teaches.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I have to disagree as I believe that it will be up to those in authority to decide the issues in question. Not you or me. It is just your opinion that the Orthodox Church will never agree or come into union with Rome. Only time will tell as to who is correct. I do not know all of the issues that kept some of the Churches out of union with Rome, but I understand that what ever those issues were, they resolved them and came back into union with Rome. As for those Eastern Orthodox Churches, whom you say, which is your opinion that “we cannot consider them Orthodox” that remained in union with Rome, my guess is that they might disagree with you on that point that thy are not Orthodox; Orthodox meaning right teaching and they must think that what they teach is the same as what Rome teaches.

In every dialogue with Rome the Orthodox have objected strongly to the claims of the Eastern Catholic Churches to be Orthodox. If you read the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches, you will find that in most cases, Orthodox were forced by Roman Catholic monarchs to accept Roman authority and those who remained Orthodox were persecuted. Rome also educated boys from the East and sent them back to infiltrate Orthodox Churches with a fifth column loyal to Rome. That is what happened to the Patriarchate of Antioch and resulted in the Melkite schism of 1724.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

In every dialogue with Rome the Orthodox have objected strongly to the claims of the Eastern Catholic Churches to be Orthodox. If you read the history of the Eastern Catholic Churches, you will find that in most cases, Orthodox were forced by Roman Catholic monarchs to accept Roman authority and those who remained Orthodox were persecuted. Rome also educated boys from the East and sent them back to infiltrate Orthodox Churches with a fifth column loyal to Rome. That is what happened to the Patriarchate of Antioch and resulted in the Melkite schism of 1724.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I understand that you are going to exress youropinion based on your understanding of History and are going to opine based on your beliefs. However, I stand by my remarks I made about who in the end will decide union or not and it will not be you or me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can accept Peter as the rock in the sense that he was the leader of the Apostles and the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul wrote in

Ephesians 2:20
“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”

Doctrine can only develop only in the sense that we have sometimes clarify what the Church teaches to respond to various new and heretical teachings. However, doctrine does not develop in such a way that contradicts what the Church has always believed. Once again if the doctrine of papal supremacy were a legitimate development, the entire Church would have embraced it. Instead, the West developed this particular doctrine and tried to force it on the East. Because papal supremacy contradicted what the Church already believed and directly contradicted the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, the East rejected this new and novel doctrine.
The concept of development of doctrine can be very dangerous, because all doctrine must be firmly grounded in the Faith of the ancient undivided Church and accepted by the entire Church. The concept of development of doctrine is what has led to the apostasy of modern American liberal Protestantism with women’s ordination and blessing same sex unions.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Well, first we crawl, then we walk. I know it was not easy for you to write that, and I appreciate your willingness to do so.

Let’s take a pause to pray and to reflect on the implications of Peter being the Rock and the existence of proper doctrinal development.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I almost forgot to ask: would you mind sharing the comments you wrote for Isaiah 22:20-22?

Thanks.

Fr. John?