Define "Supremacy"

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Did I mention “websites?” Is this another example of you putting words into my mouth like with the issue of Ukrainian jurisdiction? Hahaha. Oh well. Between my best friend and myself, we have two rooms full of books, wall to wall that we have amassed over the years. We have a third of one wall dedicated to Eastern issues, and over three-fourths of them are from Eastern sources.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

]
Did I mention “websites?” Is this another example of you putting words into my mouth like with the issue of Ukrainian jurisdiction? Hahaha. Oh well. Between my best friend and myself, we have two rooms full of books, wall to wall that we have amassed over the years. We have a third of one wall dedicated to Eastern issues, and over three-fourths of them are from Eastern sources

Well, it has been very remiss of you not to reference any of these books in any of your messages. I really cannot remember a single book reference in any of your posts. I hope no plagiarism has been occuring?

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

The reason I don’t often mention books is because, as you already know, my computer is slow, and I don’t like to bother typing out the references, when they are easily available on the net with a few clicks here and there. Simple as that. Further, most of my answers are from memory from the books I have read. And as I have a mountain of books, I really would not be able to get in more than one post a day if I had to search out a particular reference. So far, no one has objected to anything I’ve written, and I have no objections to anyone trying to verify my sources. I’ve got nothing to hide; I don’t normally write things unless I am absolutely sure about them. In the several months I have been here, I have been graced with the knowledge of being corrected twice in the information I have proffered. The first time, I was sleepy and was remiss; the second time was my own sloppy scholarship. I think that’s a pretty good record, if I do say so myself, all glory to God.

Not that it matters to you, but my future posting on the “history” will take my solid attention. Sensationalism is a despicable quality that I have seen in anti-Catholics and anti-Semites, and anti-Protestants and anti-everything else. I always pray that God prevents me from doing that, because not only would I be guilty of hypocrisy, but also lack of charity.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Orthodoc]

[Now, if** you and Father Ambrose will be so kind as to admit, as you both have stated, that St. Vladimir never rejected the Church of Rome (i.e., its theology), we can finally settle this part of the conversation. Don’t forget, Vladimir is a Catholic saint too.]

I have no intention of correcting anything I wrote because it doesn’t need correcting. I stand by every iota I posted. Including the punctuation!

Where did either Fr Ambrose or myself ever state that St Vladimir NEVER REJECTED the Chruch of Rome or its theology? In fact, we’ve been saying quite the opposite the entire length of this thread…

As far as your claim of St Vladimir never rejecting Rome’s theology - During St Vladimir’s baptism when he did the profession of faith by reciting the Creed, do you think he said it with or without the ‘filioque’? If you can prove he used the ‘filioque’ then you can prove your claim. Without that proof your claim is baseless!
Gee, I can hardly wait! But then again, based on your previous posts I guess I can. Probably until you-know-where freezes over!

Orthodoc

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Orthodoc,

Why does it matter to you so much that St. Vladimir stated the Creed without the Filioque in 989? The Filioque was not even approved for universal use in the Western Patriarchate until 1014! So if you think St. Vladimir was saying a different Creed than the Creed recited at Rome at the time he was baptized, you certainly need to do a bit more reading. Sometimes, I think you just get too waaaaay ahead of yourself. Your prejudice really seems to make you blind to the facts of history. Can’t you let up and take a breather? Seriously, it’ll do you good.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Why does it matter to you so much that St. Vladimir stated the Creed without the Filioque in 989? The Filioque was not even approved for universal use in the Western Patriarchate until 1014!

It is more accurate to say that in 1014 the Roman Church caved in to the fear of the imperial power and allowed the Creed with the illegal Filioque addition to be sung at the coronation of the Emperor Henry II in 1014 - the shameful subjection of the Church of Rome to the imperial power. In the East which was free of such imperial abuse the Creed continued to be recited in its proper and original form composed by the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[CrusaderNY]

God bless you father, you are someone to be admired and listened to.
Fr Ambrose:

Glory be! You are saying that Paul exercised an authority identical to that of Peter! Of course the Orthodox would broaden that out a bit and say that it was not only Paul who had the same authority as Peter, but all the Apostles and all their successors.

---

“I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.” ~Proverbs 7:17

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Hagia Sophia,

Father’s post #421 is a perfect example of the anti-Catholicism many here see in Father A. Note the several characteristics:

1. Does not address the issue at hand.
2. Seeks to use any and every occasion not for the sake of unity or understanding, but only to criticize.
3. Often does not address doctrines, but merely actions.
4. Is inconsistent (some may say “hypocritical”) in applying their rationale against the Catholic Church.
5. There is no humility to admit when the accusation against the Catholic Church is actually easily made against their own Church in other circumstances.
6. Uses a lot of descriptive language for emphasis to get the point across.
7. Causes people who have a good knowledge of their faith to fall down on the floor laughing.

God bless,

Greg

 

[steve_b]

GAssisi:

Not that it matters to you, but my future posting on the “history” will take my solid attention.*** Sensationalism*** is a despicable quality that I have seen in anti-Catholics and anti-Semites, and anti-Protestants and anti-everything else. I always pray that God prevents me from doing that, because not only would I be guilty of hypocrisy, but also lack of charity.

God bless,

Greg

Greg,

Sensationalism, is exactly the problem. .

I can’t find Catholics here on this forum in general, or this thread in particular, presenting Orthodoxy with such disrespect, as Orthodoxy presents Catholicism. It is not a random poking, it’s chronic.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

It is more accurate to say that in 1014 the Roman Church caved in to the fear of the imperial power and allowed the Creed with the illegal Filioque addition to be sung at the coronation of the Emperor Henry II in 1014 - the shameful subjection of the Church of Rome to the imperial power. In the East which was free of such imperial abuse the Creed continued to be recited in its proper and original form composed by the Ecumenical Councils.

Take a look at this.

catholic.com/library/Filioque.asp

 

[steve_b]

Originally Posted by Fr Ambrose
Glory be! You are saying that Paul exercised an authority identical to that of Peter! Of course the Orthodox would broaden that out a bit and say that it was not only Paul who had the same authority as Peter, but all the Apostles and all their successors.

CrusaderNY:

God bless you father, you are someone to be admired and listened to.

Crusader, apostles all had the same power. That doesn’t change or negate the added power Jesus gave to Peter. And therefore his successors.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

Dear Hagia Sophia,

Father’s post #421 is a perfect example of the anti-Catholicism many here see in Father A. Note the several characteristics:

1. Does not address the issue at hand.
2. Seeks to use any and every occasion not for the sake of unity or understanding, but only to criticize.
3. Often does not address doctrines, but merely actions.
4. Is inconsistent (some may say “hypocritical”) in applying their rationale against the Catholic Church.
5. There is no humility to admit when the accusation against the Catholic Church is actually easily made against their own Church in other circumstances.
6. Uses a lot of descriptive language for emphasis to get the point across.
7. Causes people who have a good knowledge of their faith to fall down on the floor laughing.

God bless,

Greg

Then allow me to rephrase and translate it into the language of pious ecuspeak…

It is more accurate to say that in 1014 the Roman Church caved in to the fear of the imperial power and allowed the Creed with the illegal Filioque addition to be sung at the coronation of the Emperor Henry II in 1014 - the shameful subjection of the Church of Rome to the imperial power. In the East which was free of such imperial abuse the Creed continued to be recited in its proper and original form composed by the Ecumenical Councils.

The above should have read:

In 1014 the Churches of the East offered many prayers with strong entreaties to the Lord to come to the assistance of their venerable sister Church of Rome, the foundation of the divine Apostles Peter and Paul, where Pope Benedict VIII had most unwillingly agreed under imperial pressure to allow the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed sung at the coronation of His Imperial Highness Emperor Henry II. This was the first time that the modified Creed was sung in the sacred city of Rome and many bishops left the church weeping when it was heard. With fervent prayers the Eastern Churches prayed for the Lord’s grace for their Roman brothers and lamented the intrusion of the secular power into the sacred sphere of the Church.

 

[Orthodoc]

[Originally Posted by GAssisi
Why does it matter to you so much that St. Vladimir stated the Creed without the Filioque in 989? The Filioque was not even approved for universal use in the Western Patriarchate until 1014! ]

But it had become a point of contention between the Eastern (Orthodox) Catholic and the Western (Roman) Catholic churches long before that -

The dispute regarding the ‘filioque’ between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod’s teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.
Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Then allow me to rephrase and translate it into the language of pious ecuspeak…

The above should have read:

In 1014 the Churches of the East offered many prayers with strong entreaties to the Lord to come to the assistance of their venerable sister Church of Rome, the foundation of the divine Apostles Peter and Paul, where Pope Benedict VIII had most unwillingly agreed under imperial pressure to allow the inclusion of the filioque in the Creed sung at the coronation of His Imperial Highness Emperor Henry II. This was the first time that the modified Creed was sung in the sacred city of Rome and many bishops left the church weeping when it was heard. With fervent prayers the Eastern Churches prayed for the Lord’s grace for their Roman brothers and lamented the intrusion of the secular power into the sacred sphere of the Church.

It was Nicean II council 300 years earlier, that used the phrase, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Will that little change make you happy?

Scripturally, The Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), and HE internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).

These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing. Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, **I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” **(Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

Catch that? After further study, Bp Ware thinks this is a semantical issue not a doctrinal issue.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

It was Nicean II council 300 years earlier, that used the phrase, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Will that little change make you happy?

Steve b, as a member of the Church which convened each and all of the Councils held at Nicea I can say with certitude that no Council held incorporated the phrase into the Creed…

Scripturally, The Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33),

Agreed.

and HE internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity

Heresy.

These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing. Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).

So what’s to say the vacillating bishop won’t change his position again? Doesn’t inspire too much confidence. Does he believe that all our holy Fathers and Saints were less educated than he in their rejection of the filioque?

---

'Sé do bheatha, a Mhuire, atá lán de ghrásta, tá an Tiarna leat.

 

[Orthodoc]

[These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing.]

I just love Roman Catholic double talk! If ‘and’ and ‘through’ mean the same thing; or with or with out the ‘filioque’ it’s the same theology as you claim. Then, why not, for the sake of unity, either -

1. Remove the ‘and’
2. Or change it to ‘through’

The fact that you won’t says a helluva a lot and makes your above comments laughable. We are not that dumb!

Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

fr ambrose:

Steve b, as a member of the Church which convened each and all of the Councils held at Nicea I can say with certitude that no Council held incorporated the phrase into the Creed…

Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, used the phrase “through the son” because he drew encouragement from Eastern Fathers. He was Patriarch during Nicaea II.
usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm look up 7th ecumenical council
steve b:

Quote:

and HE internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity

fr ambrose:

Heresy.

Depends on how one defines proceeds. He internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity, this is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). This doesn’t mean that the HS originates from the Son. That’s an Orthodox misunderstanding of what Catholics are saying…
fr ambrose:

Quote:
These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing. Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware, who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
So what’s to say the vacillating bishop won’t change his position again? Doesn’t inspire too much confidence. Does he believe that all our holy Fathers and Saints were less educated than he in their rejection of the filioque?

If you want to trash Bp Ware, that’s your deal. But if you can dismiss someone of the likes of Bp Ware so easily, then don’t quote any Orthodox source ever again to support anything you say… After all, no ONE speaks for the Orthodox, and apparantly that must especially refer to Bp Ware…

 

[steve_b]

[These expressions “and the Son” or “through the Son” mean the same thing.]

I just love Roman Catholic double talk! If ‘and’ and ‘through’ mean the same thing; or with or with out the ‘filioque’ it’s the same theology as you claim. Then, why not, for the sake of unity, either -

1. Remove the ‘and’
2. Or change it to ‘through’

The fact that you won’t says a helluva a lot and makes your above comments laughable. We are not that dumb!

Orthodoc

1. Shall I quote for you the Eastern Fathers who use “through the son”?
2. Many Byzantines converted to Catholicism because they saw this was a tempest in a tea cup issue.
3. Many Orthodox today recognize, this is a misunderstanding, not a doctrinal issue. Bp Ware influences many on the Orthodox side. We’ll just have to see how successful he’ll be.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, used the phrase “through the son” because he drew encouragement from Eastern Fathers. He was Patriarch during Nicaea II.
usccb.org/seia/filioque.htm look up 7th ecumenical council

The text to which you have referred us says that the whole written report of the 7th Ecumenical Council which was received in the West was a mess because of mistranslation…

Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. **The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. ** **Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). ** The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. **Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. **

So you can see that there was a lack of reliability what was conveyed to the West from this Council, and the misunderstanding was so great that it caused Charlemagne to reject the Council (at the Synod of Frankfurt) and he tried to persuade the Pope to reject the 7th Council also.

Depends on how one defines proceeds. He internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity, this is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). This doesn’t mean that the HS originates from the Son.

The Council of Florence defines…

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

Has there been any subsequent Roman Catholic Council which modifies this definition? Is there any church authority which allows you to put forward as Catholic truth your theory of “proceeding” and “originating”? Could you please provide us with the reference? Otherwise I suspect that this is not really Roman Catholic doctrine but merely a private opinion and somewhat in the order of Bp Kallistos’.

If you want to trash Bp Ware, that’s your deal. But if you can dismiss someone of the likes of Bp Ware so easily, then don’t quote any Orthodox source ever again to support anything you say… After all, no ONE speaks for the Orthodox, and apparantly that must especially refer to Bp Ware…

I am not trashing the bishop. But his position is at odds with the Orthodox consensus, and while he may hold it as his private opinion (what we would call a theologoumenon), it obviously cannot supplant the mind of the Church.

**A statement from the Fathers of the Holy Mountain **
(at end of web page)
orthodoxinternetservices.com/reading/loveintruth.html

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. Shall I quote for you the Eastern Fathers who use “through the son”?

There are, at least as the Orthodox perceive the matter, two distinct ‘systems’ of the filioque. One of them, including that of which Saint Augustine writes, is capable of an Orthodox understanding; the other which developed later in the isolated milieau of the Western Church is not, at least not for the Orthodox.

Many Orthodox today recognize, this is a misunderstanding, not a doctrinal issue. Bp Ware influences many on the Orthodox side. We’ll just have to see how successful he’ll be.

Bishop Kallistos’ influence should not be taken out of proportion. He has written a few popular books which are great as an introduction to Orthodoxy but he has not given us any major theological works. His popularity is primarily with English converts.