Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[Nine_Two]

Well i know the Filioque started brewing around the 6Th century.But at the council in 1054AD. Rome decided to force the Issue on the Filioque and there Supremacy to make the Filioque Infallible.
Because the Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed. The Patriarch of Rome excommunicated him.
In turn the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated the Patriarch of Rome.
It was a power struggle!!

There was no council in 1054. The Papal Legate, Cardinal Humbert, interupted a service at the Hagia Sophia to place the Bull of Excommunication on the altar.

 

[Nine_Two]

Was it that Peter was only Infallible when he used the Council?

No. Peter was never infallible.

 

[shaky]

Hi shaky,

When Orthodox and Catholics speak of the procession of the Holy Spirit, they are speaking of the eternal procession within the Trinity. Orthodox believe the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone, and Catholics believe the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a single principle.

The Incarnation is when the Word becomes flesh within the bosom of Mary. The conception is miraculous because it is through the power of the Holy Spirit. A cursory reading may lead one to think the Holy Spirit, along with the Father, cause the Incarnate Word. However, this is not the teaching of the Fathers. In the gospel accounts, the Holy Spirit later descends upon Christ when He is baptized, and Christ breathes the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles. The Holy Spirit is manifested in and through Christ.

So what you are saying is that the holy spirit was in and through christ as Mary was Impregnated!!
You Know when catholics say Mary is the mother Of God!! Does this Include being mother of God the Father as-well as God The Son?

 

[joe370]

Hey Nine…

I’m curious what your point in saying Pope/President and Bishop/President is?

Simple: each self-governing See has it’s own Bishop, which is like a President, according to Wikipedia, to which you seem to defer.

They are Bishops, one holds the title of Pope, and they are certainly not equivalent to the Western view of Pope - which is part of the issue.
Nonetheless this is a discussion on the infallibility of the person of the Pope, not the infallibility of the Church

One holds the title of Pope over each See - correct, or am I mistaken? I agreed that they were not equivalent to the Western view of Pope; this is a discussion, I thought, about: Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches? My answer is a resounding yes.

An interesting thing is that I’m unaware of anywhere that the Infallibility of the Church was ever made doctrine. It is curious that an individuals would need to be if it were true.

In the east? It wasn’t, and yet the EOC claims that the EOC is being infallibly guided by the HS into all truth.

As a former Protestant who became Orthodox, I acknowledged that the Papacy certainly had a major role in the Church early on. This, however, does not equate with infallibility in that person, nor infallibility of the Metropolis of Rome.

It is rather simple: If the Petrine office is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit then you are wrong. If the Petrine office is NOT infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit then you are right. I am not gonna change your mind and you are not gonna change my mind, but that’s OK. We are still brothers in Christ…

 

[joe370]

There was no council in 1054. The Papal Legate, Cardinal Humbert, interupted a service at the Hagia Sophia to place the Bull of Excommunication on the altar.

So, leading up to, and during this crisis, was the CC totally in the wrong, while the EOC was totally in the right, in your opinion?

 

[Madaglan]

So what you are saying is that the holy spirit was in and through christ as Mary was Impregnated!!
You Know when catholics say Mary is the mother Of God!! Does this Include being mother of God the Father as-well as God The Son?

The Trinity is three distinct persons who share one common essence. We call Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos) because she gave birth to God the Word. The Father and the Holy Spirit, while willing the Incarnation, did not become incarnate with the Son in Mary. Therefore, Mary is not called Mother of God the Father or Mother of God the Holy Spirit.

 

[joe370]

No. Peter was never infallible.

You are right; no one except God is infallible. The Petrine office is infallibly protected by the Infallible Holy Spirit, allowing the fallible occupant of the Petrine office to speak infallibly, which has rarely been invoked.

The EOC believes that the Ecumenical councils, comprised of both East and West, is the only thing that is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit, and therefore neither the EOC nor the CC can speak infallibly, if need be, at least until they can speak once again, as an ecumenical council - correct?

 

[Nine_Two]

Simple: each self-governing See has it’s own Bishop, which is like a President, according to Wikipedia, to which you seem to defer.

Relatively few see’s are self-governing, (autonomous). And I gave you a link to wikipedia to define a concept you seemed to have issues with. I can of course give you actual academic sources to give you the exact same information. In fact I probably should. I refer you to p.120 of The Rhetorical Act, 3rd Ed. by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Susan Schultz Huxman, published by Thomson Wadworth 2003.

I made the assumption that you would not have this, or indeed any other book, on constructing (and deconstructing) an argument so I gave a quote from an easily available website, after checking that it gave the correct definition of course.

Now would you mind dropping the attitude?

One holds the title of Pope over each See - correct, or am I mistaken? I agreed that they were not equivalent to the Western view of Pope; this is a discussion, I thought, about: Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches? My answer is a resounding yes.

No, only the Archbishop of Alexandria holds the title “Pope”, and he held it long before Rome similarly claimed the title. For someone who claims to have researched the Eastern Churches this is a major thing to not realize. It would be like myself claiming I had studies the Catholic Church in depth but not know that an archbishop is higher than a bishop.
Do I want reunion? Yes, but I want it under the Orthodox model, Rome will be an autocephalous Church, as it is, fully recognizing all the other Churches as autocephalous.

In the east? It wasn’t, and yet the EOC claims that the EOC is being infallibly guided by the HS into all truth.

Not in the west either as far as I’m aware, but that is exactly my point. You don’t have to dogmaticly define everything.

It is rather simple: If the Petrine office is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit then you are wrong. If the Petrine office is NOT infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit then you are right. I am not gonna change your mind and you are not gonna change my mind, but that’s OK. We are still brothers in Christ…

You are quite correct, however as you earlier mentioned, this is a thread about union of the two churches, and as long as there is no agreement on this, there will never be union.

 

[Nine_Two]

So, leading up to, and during this crisis, was the CC totally in the wrong, while the EOC was totally in the right, in your opinion?

On the attitudes of those involved, there was fault on all sides, but on the issues themselves, Rome was in the wrong.

 

[Nine_Two]

The EOC believes that the Ecumenical councils, comprised of both East and West, is the only thing that is infallibly protected by the Holy Spirit, and therefore neither the EOC nor the CC can speak infallibly, if need be, at least until they can speak once again, as an ecumenical council - correct?

Rome is not required for a council to be ecumenical. The Church can certainly speak infallibly without Rome.

 

[joe370]

Rome is not required for a council to be ecumenical. The Church can certainly speak infallibly without Rome.

That’s what I thought, and the EOC is not required for a council to be ecumenical in the CC, even though you have suggested that it is, I believe; correct me if I am misinterpreted.

The CC can also certainly speak infallibly, as does the EOC, without the assent of the EOC. I guess were back to square one.

 

[Hesychios]

There was no council in 1054. The Papal Legate, Cardinal Humbert, interupted a service at the Hagia Sophia to place the Bull of Excommunication on the altar.

Correct.

The idea was not accepted at any of the 7 great Ecumenical Councils, as far as I know it was probably never discussed. The filioque was not declared dogma in the west until 1215AD. That would be about 160 years after the infamous faux pas of Cardinals Humbert and Frederic in 1054AD.

It did spread in the west, like a virus, from 589AD (about 550 years after Christ, about 25 generations of Christians) to it’s formal acceptance in 1215AD, when orthodox voices in the western church were finally silenced on the matter was another further 600 years.

Another thing this episode indicates, but most Catholics seems to miss, is that the ecclesiology of the western church was different then. If the church was centralized as it is today, any number of Popes who opposed it could have stopped it, but it spread in areas that were independent of Rome’s control.

The filioque got a foothold in Rome after Franks were being appointed Pope and could impose it on the Italian church. Still, the whole process took 600 years, about 30 generations.

 

[joe370]

On the attitudes of those involved, there was fault on all sides, but on the issues themselves, Rome was in the wrong.

Well, whoever was right or wrong on the issues, (I am no scholar) - I am quite certain Jesus would expect forgiveness on both sides.

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven time.”

 

[shaky]

Shaky, if I wait for any slack from you, I’m going to wait a long time aren’t I?

When I was referring to the canonical superstructure I was referring solely to canon law and its operations. Canon law is a human attempt to comply with the Divine law. It is not the Divine law itself. Faithful Catholics in good standing are completely free to disagree with enactments or procedures of the canon law.

I see lots of justification in my Church. Christ justifies it. He started it.

Thanks for clarifying things its much appreciated.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Personalmente… I think there are some give and take things that could occur. If we are saying the same thing with different words as persons like Saint Maximos say, wouldn’t it be a big step forward and we could move on from this issue if the Latin church dropped the filioque? I mean, originally it was meant to stop a heresy in the far west. But in doing so, it strained relations with the eastern church. So…I don’t really see a problem if that heresy is no longer there… seems like an unnecessary roadblock…and if the Church valued the Ecumenical Councils, she should hold to the Constantinople-Nicene creed.

The Latin Liturgy was only just “revised” less than 100 years ago and just this year the English speaking countries had another revision of language. I’m sure you could work in the dropping of filioque… = D

 

[AveChriste11]

Personalmente… I think there are some give and take things that could occur. If we are saying the same thing with different words as persons like Saint Maximos say, wouldn’t it be a big step forward and we could move on from this issue if the Latin church dropped the filioque? I mean, originally it was meant to stop a heresy in the far west. But in doing so, it strained relations with the eastern church. So…I don’t really see a problem if that heresy is no longer there… seems like an unnecessary roadblock…and if the Church valued the Ecumenical Councils, she should hold to the Constantinople-Nicene creed.

The Latin Liturgy was only just “revised” less than 100 years ago and just this year the English speaking countries had another revision of language. I’m sure you could work in the dropping of filioque… = D

All of this revision, this is why I’m more comfortable being Orthodox…

 

[Nine_Two]

That’s what I thought, and the EOC is not required for a council to be ecumenical in the CC, even though you have suggested that it is, I believe; correct me if I am misinterpreted.

The CC can also certainly speak infallibly, as does the EOC, without the assent of the EOC. I guess were back to square one.

I don’t see how we’re back to square one since this is quite a digression. I state the Orthodox view on infallibility. The idea that both the Church as a whole and a Local Church can both speak infallibly, but do not always agree, certainly cannot work, and unity will not be found by asserting this line of argument.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, whoever was right or wrong on the issues, (I am no scholar) - I am quite certain Jesus would expect forgiveness on both sides.

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven time.”

We’d love to forgive you, but we can’t forgive you while you’re still trying to push error on us.

 

[PbloPicasso]

We’d love to forgive you, but we can’t forgive you while you’re still trying to push error on us.

I’ve heard very convincing arguments for what you call error. However, I’m not a theologian and have been trying to learn as much as possible. I’ve even considered entering a graduate program to learn. My intention was to do so until a recent mishap with our DRE, who basically called me a bully and lied about me. I’ve lost faith in Catholic leadership. I have serious doubts they can make good decisions. But, I’m told that Orthodox also have similar issues. Trying to discern “truth” from ancient documents feels nearly impossible at times. Therefore, I continue to exist in this cesspool that pulls me down. Once I followed the Holy Spirit right out of the Catholic Church to a Protestant church, truly believing what I did was right. So now, how do I follow the Holy Spirit with the little information I can find on the topic with contradictory positions. One of them must be wrong logically speaking. Could both be correct? Death seems to be the only method of revelation we’ll receive any time soon.

 

[dzheremi]

I’ve heard very convincing arguments for what you call error.

Almost anything can be argued. Perhaps its better to ask if something must be argued, and if so, why. When approaching the Holy Trinity, even the minimum of argument gets in the way of providing the maximum worship that our God deserves.