Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ConstantineTG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Credo_ergo_sum said:
No need for apologies, it’s always fun to debate with you. I can be uncharitable at times too, thinking I know it all and typing arrogant responses while I am the worst of fools. That’s why I placed that quote in my signature, just to remind myself not to be too agressive at times.
Click to expand...
Thank you! That’s a great quote:thumbsup:
 
steve_b said:
Personally, I think this was a battle the EO didn’t need to fight.
Click to expand...
You state that as if these people were from another church. This was the catholic church, this was how it worked.

I think in retrospect it was a battle the fellow bishop of Rome didn’t need to fight, he came to realize it and backed off.
 
I think you posted that in the wrong thread. The whole St. Jerome thing is in the Apologetics forum.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
At the end of the day, should that not be the objective (celebration of Pascha on a common, or “uniform” date)?

Despite all the argument on this subject, IMO it still seems inherently wrong that Christians do not celebrate the central feast of Christianity on the same day.
Click to expand...
I heartily agree on this. Despite all our in-family squabbling, doctrinal debates, mudslinging polemics, slapping-heretics-for-Jesus (thank you, St. Nicholas!), we should still be able to celebrate the central feast, revelation, and defining moment of Christianity. To say it is pity we don’t is an understatement. May God grant that arrive at a unified date!

But, despite all this, at least we can say that the majority of Christianity celebrates the Resurrection, and believes in it. Some, unfortunately, are denying these things. How one can deny the reality of the Resurrection and still call one’s self “Christian” is beyond me, especially since from St. Paul onward it has been said if the Resurrection is not true, than we are the most deluded of persons, and to be greatly pitied. But, I digress.
 
Trebor135 said:
A fairly minor point, but wasn’t Arch-Heretic Arius actually punched in the face by St. Nicholas?
Click to expand...
Depends on the translation and/or local rendition told. Point being, St. Nick’s hand made a physical assault upon Arius’ visage. 😛
 
ThatOneGuy92 said:
Depends on the translation and/or local rendition told. Point being, St. Nick’s hand made a physical assault upon Arius’ visage. 😛
Click to expand...
😃

If only they had digital recording and YouTube back then, with some helpful soul sneaking in a video camera…
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
The First Council of Nicaea does not mandate the Julian nor any particular calendar.

In compliance with the council’s directive for a uniform date, it was decided that Easter should be the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21 (the Paschal Full Moon).

Both the Gregorian Easter Sunday and the Julian Easter Sunday are in full conformity with the First Council of Nicaea.

Oh, I agree 100% that churches should continue to use the Julian Paschalion if that is what they maintain is best.

But let’s be clear: as I just explained above, both the Gregorian Paschalion and the Julian Paschalion fully follow the First Council of Nicaea.
Click to expand...
I thought the Council also included in its Epistle that the celebration of Easter should also never take place on the same day as the Passover, and that the Orthodox take this consideration into account, while the Western Christians have not? I remember Schaff stating that the Western Easter has at one time overlapped with the Passover, thus seemingly violate that directive of the Council. I’ll work on finding that reference again.
 
LionHeart777 said:
Carefree,

I was not personally offended, I was just trying to point out that I wasn’t agreeing-- but apology accepted and I appreciate it.

I apologize for the “do you celebrate Easter on Sunday” remark as it was smart allecky and I feel un-Christian.

I agree that in that we interpret the available data differently. As one who converted to Catholicism from Protestantism I can say that it would be nice (and would be on more than just this level) to not have had to come to a decision between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity; that they were but only names that represented something identical.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the kind understanding 🙂 I did have to come to that unfortunate decision as I started born Catholic, but my faith position was decided at a non-Christian time of my life.

I will now read up on the several pages that I’ve missed in this thread and hopefully I will encounter you again on a kind-hearted level.
 
Trebor135 said:
😃

If only they had digital recording and YouTube back then, with some helpful soul sneaking in a video camera…
Click to expand...
Streams of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, later in bluray, how awesome would that be?
 
But let’s be clear: as I just explained above, both the Gregorian Paschalion and the Julian Paschalion fully follow the First Council of Nicaea.
Click to expand...
Yes,the reckoning of Pascha is objective regardless of which calendar is in use, and another reason why every particular Church choose her own way. But as those advocating continued use of the Julian Calendar correctly maintain, the only calendar in ecclesiastical use at the time of the Council of Nicea when Pascha was reckoned was the Julian.

I’m not sure how we got off on the calendar considering the opening post…:confused:
 
ByzCathCantor said:
At the end of the day, should that not be the objective (celebration of Pascha on a common, or “uniform” date)?

Despite all the argument on this subject, IMO it still seems inherently wrong that Christians do not celebrate the central feast of Christianity on the same day.
Click to expand...
Sure. I agree. Unfortunately, more pressing matters than that divide us at the moment, so focusing on this matter is probably not a very good choice, practically speaking.

Besides, in areas of the world where Christians need to appear united, the various churches use each other’s Paschalion anyway. For instance, certain Latin Catholic parishes in the Middle East do in fact use the Julian Easter; some eastern Catholics in the U.S. as well as the Orthodox Church of Finland use the Gregorian Easter.
Hesychios said:
I think in retrospect it was a battle the fellow bishop of Rome didn’t need to fight, he came to realize it and backed off.
Click to expand...
I totally agree.
Shiranui117 said:
I thought the Council also included in its Epistle that the celebration of Easter should also never take place on the same day as the Passover, and that the Orthodox take this consideration into account, while the Western Christians have not? I remember Schaff stating that the Western Easter has at one time overlapped with the Passover, thus seemingly violate that directive of the Council. I’ll work on finding that reference again.
Click to expand...
I remember reading about that somewhere. I could be wrong, but I remember finding that there was no such rule officially, although it does so happen on a de facto level that in the Julian Paschalion Easter Sunday never overlaps with the Jewish Passover.
 
I received my book!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Will start reading soon 👍
 
Mark of Ephesus was wrong on all points, the oldest of text contains the so-called interpolation, in fact even the books that the greeks have in the Council of Florence has the same “so-called” interpolated text, and when they came back home to their libraries, the same text was there in there manuscripts as well, it was just this generation that the greeks started to burn these books as they thought that it was an interpolation
Cavaradossi said:
Ah, my bad, I jumped the gun. The part you had underlined in the old quote appears in all manuscripts (the part about pious tradition recounting that the Spirit is Second to the Son). The part that is in dispute is what comes after that. I knew what it was you were wanting to quote, but didn’t actually check to make sure that you quoted it. 😛

Mark of Ephesus was at some point in the council of Florence aware that some manuscripts in Constantinople had the interpolation. His claim was that 1) the oldest manuscripts did not have it, 2) a majority of the manuscripts did not include the clause, and 3) Basil used that passage in a rhetorical manner, conceding that even if what Eunomius believed was true, it still didn’t lead to the necessity of a third nature (and that therefore even if the interpolation were genuine, it wouldn’t imply that Basil himself believed in it). Modern scholarship on the matter seems to have sided most especially with Mark of Ephesus on point 3), that the clause in question might not be an interpolation at all but a direct quotation of Eunomius (explaining its absence from some manuscripts and presence in others), meaning that Basil was using it as a rhetorical concession to show that Eunomius’ own beliefs did not logically lead to the conclusion that the Spirit must be of a third nature.
Click to expand...
The interpolation does not make sense, because the truth of the matter is that the manuscript shown to them is 600 years old during the council of Florence, and it was in the greeks hands all this time, that means it in the presence of the greeks and in the tradition of the greeks as well.

Even their own Patriarch, the very humble and kind Bekkos, agreed with it that the text is truly authentic.
Cavaradossi said:
That interpretation would make sense, since it would be absurd for Basil to admit that the Spirit is third in dignity after he wrote two books trying to disprove the idea that the Son is second in dignity. It is also worth noting that the Eunomians seemed to teach that the Spirit was caused from the Son, which would also be consistent with the idea that the clause (which without any sort of reservation ascribes causality to the Son) is not Basil’s writing, but Eunomius’ writing.
Click to expand...
 
Why did the Catholic priest Migne place the interpolation in notes instead of in the main text?
 
marlo said:
Mark of Ephesus was wrong on all points, the oldest of text contains the so-called interpolation, in fact even the books that the greeks have in the Council of Florence has the same “so-called” interpolated text, and when they came back home to their libraries, the same text was there in there manuscripts as well, it was just this generation that the greeks started to burn these books as they thought that it was an interpolation

The interpolation does not make sense, because the truth of the matter is that the manuscript shown to them is 600 years old during the council of Florence, and it was in the greeks hands all this time, that means it in the presence of the greeks and in the tradition of the greeks as well.

Even their own Patriarch, the very humble and kind Bekkos, agreed with it that the text is truly authentic.
Click to expand...
In other words, in trying to defend what seems to be your favorite Filioque proof-text, you ignore all contemporary scholarship (a great deal of which has been done by Catholics) on the matter which shows that the disputed passage is likely a quotation of Eunomius used by Basil as a rhetorical concession, and instead choose to base your faith on a decontextualized passage which might have been written by a heresiarch. Go read chapters 14 and 15 of book two of St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Against Eunomius (both chapters devoted to defeating Eunomius’ blasphemies against the Holy Spirit) and tell me that St. Basil, Gregory’s older brother, really believed that the Spirit was second in dignity to the Son (one of Eunomius’ many insane and heretical teachings).

And how could you use Bekkos to support your claim knowing that Bekkos was a strongly pro-union patriarch installed by the emperor after Lyons? Surely his insistence that the text is genuine means very little since while you deceptively call him one of our own, he was deposed after the repudiation of the union of Lyons. He is as much one of ours as Martin Luther or John Calvin was one of yours
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top