Filioque Debate

[GaryTaylor]

I’m sorry but we are not the one with the misunderstanding. Even today 75% of Roman Catholics here in the US believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person! .

No-one argued this point.

 

[spina1953]

It seems to me since God is Spirit so to is the Son as well as man and the Holy Spirit is spirit. We say persons to show the difference in how each works in us and in creation. God the Father is eternal so to is God the Son who is also the Son of Man, and the Holy Spirit. While each is different each is also of the same nature that the God the Father is. The trinity is the most difficult to explain as there is no human language to explain it nor is there any human who is able to comprehend God and God’s nature or essence.

The Apostles taught that they were taught by Jesus Christ Himself. Maybe they did not understand it but they believed all the same, so maybe just maybe we too should take the example of the Apostles and all who came after and just believe that there is God the Father, God the Son made Man and God the Holy Spirit three persons in one God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m sorry but we are not the one with the misunderstanding. Even today 75% of Roman Catholics here in the US believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person!

Is this a result of false teaching? Or simply a lack of teaching? What you pose is a non sequitur.

And about the same percentage of Protestants, who themselves were born from Roman Catholic thought, believe the same.

Like you, they have left the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church. Until you both return, there is not much we can do for you other than pray.

And I don’t think it’s any coincidence that all of the changes that occurred in Roman Catholicism, from abandoning immersion for baptism,

I’ve argued about this at length with Baptists in the Apologetics subforum. We can dance if you think you can keep up. :nope:

It is true that baptizo often means immersion. For example, the Greek version of the Old Testament tells us that Naaman, at Elisha’s direction, “went down and dipped himself [the Greek word here is baptizo] seven times in the Jordan” (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint, emphasis added).

But immersion is not the only meaning of baptizo. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “[t]he Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner.” They did not practice immersion before dinner, but, according to Mark, the Pharisees “do not eat unless they wash [nipto] their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves [baptizo]” (Mark 7:3–4a, emphasis added). So baptizo can mean cleansing or ritual washing as well as immersion.

A similar range of meanings can be seen when baptizo is used metaphorically. Sometimes a figurative “baptism” is a sort of “immersion”; but not always. For example, speaking of his future suffering and death, Jesus said, “I have a baptism [baptisma] to be baptized [baptizo] with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50) This might suggest that Christ would be “immersed” in suffering. On the other hand, consider the case of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples “not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’” Did this mean they would be “immersed” in the Spirit? No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33, emphasis added). Later Peter referred to the Spirit falling upon them, and also on others after Pentecost, explicitly identifying these events with the promise of being “baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15–17). These passages demonstrate that the meaning of baptizo is broad enough to include “pouring.”

to delaying the reception of children and denying them the Eucharist, to denying the Sacred Cup to the laity,

Catholic children are confirmed and receive the Eucharist, and the Catholic laity receive the cup.

However, in making these claims, you admit that you deny the authority of the Church to make such decisions. That is the fruit of your denial of the Papacy. See my signature for more details.

all of the post schism dogmas and even to breaking communion with every single ancient Apostolic see and the loss of entire Western nations to the Reformation.

The loss of entire…do you think this was by choice or by force? Perhaps you would benefit from reading about what happened to Catholics under the might of the English crown.

All of this happened after this addition into the Creed. And that spirit continues to this day with the complete rewrite of the liturgy and modern day iconoclasm, with parish after parish ripping out sacred images or putting up new, plain white washed buildings. In fact, quite to our astonishment, you continue to make your churches and liturgies look more and more like Protestant buildings and services.

I will acknowledge that the architecture of the 70’s and 80’s was pretty bad…perhaps driven by the desire to create a big space for little money. But Catholic architecture is back. Here’s the new Cathedral we’re building in Raleigh:

http://www.holynamecathedralnc.org/...12/02/032114-View-1-Exterior-at-Southwest.jpg

Here’s the parish church recently built in Wake Forest, NC:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd....x315/1836761_539677036130753_1502021727_o.jpg

And here’s the one Fr. Longenecker’s parish is building in Greenville, SC:

http://olrchurch.mojoe.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/OLR-New-Church.jpg

You say a saint could walk into a church and immediately recognize it. Not only would a saint from the first millennium not recognize a modern Roman Catholic church a Catholic from 1950 wouldn’t recognize it. And the most amazing thing of all, not only is that not considered a problem, it’s considered a virtue! You have to look at the fruits and in this case the fruits simply are not good.

The Fathers would walk into your churches and be truly amazed at their beauty. After all, they met in secret in private homes, in the catacombs, and by the banks of rivers where there was water for baptizing their converts, so our churches, yours and mine, would amaze them equally.

But then they would ask your bishops and patriarchs about their communion with the See of Peter, and hearing the negative responses, they would walk out because knowing that you are separated from Rome, they would not think they were in a true church at all.

End. Of. Story.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Seraphim73;12541073]I’m sorry but we are not the one with the misunderstanding. Even today 75% of Roman Catholics here in the US believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person! And about the same percentage of Protestants, who themselves were born from Roman Catholic thought, believe the same

.

Your survey is brought into question and so is the motive of such a survey, and those who took such a survey and those who conducted such a survey. Simply for the fact your survey contradicts the CCC which never teaches the Holy Spirit is not a person. Should not your survey, survey what the Catholic Church teaches, instead of selecting who to survey? If your survey was a valid survey? it would only reflect a segment of society which is poorly catechized, and not what the Church teaches.

And I don’t think it’s any coincidence that all of the changes that occurred in Roman Catholicism, from abandoning immersion for baptism,

Why do you spread such fallacy against the Latin Church? I know first hand of a Franciscan priest, who goes alone into the jungles in South America continuing the practice of Water Immersion for baptism of unreachable local tribes there, where no plumbing exists. The Catholic Church still practices water baptism by immersion. This Franciscan priest Missionary always visits our parish once a year without shoes. We send him back with shoes and clothing and he gives his own shoes away when he arrives back to the indigenous tribes.

to delaying the reception of children and denying them the Eucharist, to denying the Sacred Cup to the laity,

Disciplines are not doctrine and have always been subject to change.
Again a fallacy on your part. I can tell you, I am receiving the Sacred Cup at every Sunday Mass and daily morning Mass. Infant baptism is an Apostolic Tradition which has never left the Roman Catholic Church since Apostolic times. We don’t deny baptized children of God the Eucharist, we instruct them first to discern the body, blood of Christ so as not to profane the Eucharist or bring judgment upon themselves. We protect children and unbelievers in this way. See 1Corinthians 11 all, which proves the Latin practice of reception of the Eucharist discipline is a biblical practice.

all of the post schism dogmas and even to breaking communion with every single ancient Apostolic see and the loss of entire Western nations to the Reformation

.

Your opinion is well taken, but recorded history disproves your opinion here.

All of this happened after this addition into the Creed. And that spirit continues to this day with the complete rewrite of the liturgy and modern day iconoclasm, with parish after parish ripping out sacred images or putting up new, plain white washed buildings. In fact, quite to our astonishment, you continue to make your churches and liturgies look more and more like Protestant buildings and services.

No, your schism with Peter’s Chair began when the Eastern Emperor placed a Patriarch in his new capital in the new Rome, when there never was an apostolic successor of Constantinople.

What does painting one wall blue and another white have to do with anything? Cosmetics is not our Apostolic Faith.

You say a saint could walk into a church and immediately recognize it. Not only would a saint from the first millennium not recognize a modern Roman Catholic church a Catholic from 1950 wouldn’t recognize it. And the most amazing thing of all, not only is that not considered a problem, it’s considered a virtue! You have to look at the fruits and in this case the fruits simply are not good.

Here is your problem of understanding the Latin Church. She is compose of many different languages, nations, peoples, tribes and tongues. She does not convert these to remove their identity, she gives them gospels in order to keep their identity of who they are in God, one cannot say the same thing for the Greek Side of Church , which remains stagnant in history.

Rome allows some freedoms in the Liturgy for diverse cultures to express their faith and has given permission for the Mass to be said in diverse languages. Know this, She has never moved from the Apostolic faith practiced in the Sacred Liturgy since apostolic times which is Rock and immovable.

What you fail to realize, is that these diverse nations and peoples including the U.S, are given permission to say Mass in their tongues. If they abuse this Church privilege, Rome can return them back to her Latin Mass. Which the Latin language by the way is finding her way back into these diverse cultures, nations, peoples and tongues.

You should rejoice with us that Jesus Christ Crucified continues to be preached to all tongues and peoples, in a jungle, street corned in Calcutta, to the soup kitchens in New York. Our Church’s in the jungle may not be as extravagant as ST. Sophia’s Church, but the same message of Jesus Christ is proclaimed in practiced in the Catholic Church.

You generalize the Latin Church as if she did not exist in the first century. I would suggest you get another instructor or source of the Apostolic Faith, the one you have now, is steering you in the wrong direction of semantics instead of faith.

 

[Seraphim73]

No-one argued this point.

You’re right. There is no argument. But yet somehow 75% of Catholics here in the US have this grave misunderstanding. Is that because the Catholic Church has subordinated the Spirit both in the Creed and institutionally? I certainly think it’s a possibility.

 

[Randy_Carson]

from abandoning immersion for baptism,

Dead. Wrong.

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Do you see that, Joey?

This ancient document reveals that in the Early Church - which you claim to be preserving while accusing Catholics of abandonment - baptism was performed by immersion in running water (a river) or a pool or by pouring if necessary.

Today, Catholics recognize that immersion, pouring or sprinkling are all valid forms of baptism, and your assertion that the Catholic Church has abandoned the practice of the Early Church is proven to be false.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You’re right. There is no argument. But yet somehow 75% of Catholics here in the US have this grave misunderstanding. Is that because the Catholic Church has subordinated the Spirit both in the Creed and institutionally? I certainly think it’s a possibility.

You ever read St Basil Against Eunomius? You should read his understanding of the Trinity. Anyway I’m not sure what your talking about, the conversation went from a very common terminology of the three persons of the Trinity to blaming Catholics and Protestants for your cultural natural issues. We have to use this terminology so you can understand.

Im sorry your upset with Catholics and Protestants but you have your own issues as we all do. We shouldn’t look outside ourselves in this regard but within

 

[Seraphim73]

Is this a result of false teaching? Or simply a lack of teaching? What you pose is a non sequitur.

Then the lack of teaching is absolutely staggering. But that’s not really the case. The liturgy and the Creed themselves are didactic. When you water down the liturgy and alter the Creed you can’t help but get incorrect beliefs. In fact it can’t be any other way.

Like you, they have left the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church. Until you both return, there is not much we can do for you other than pray.

And yet you accept no possibility at all that Catholic teaching had anything to do with the Reformation.

I’ve argued about this at length with Baptists in the Apologetics subforum. We can dance if you think you can keep up. :nope:

Luckily the steps are easy to follow. John baptized by immersion. The Apostles baptized by immersion. The early Church baptized by immersion. The Roman Church baptized by immersion. Now you’ve changed that.

Catholic children are confirmed and receive the Eucharist, and the Catholic laity receive the cup.

In the Latin Church infants are not chrismated and do not received Communion. And for many many centuries the Cup was never offered to the laity. Now it is a option, one that the pastor is free to not exercise.

However, in making these claims, you admit that you deny the authority of the Church to make such decisions. That is the fruit of your denial of the Papacy. See my signature for more details.

The fruits are our faithfulness to the Apostolic faith and practice.

The loss of entire…do you think this was by choice or by force? Perhaps you would benefit from reading about what happened to Catholics under the might of the English crown.

But where were the seeds of that movement? Subordinate the Holy Spirit and elevate a man in His place. The Protestants simply took that principle and applied it generally to every man instead of just one man in Rome.

I will acknowledge that the architecture of the 70’s and 80’s was pretty bad…perhaps driven by the desire to create a big space for little money. But Catholic architecture is back. Here’s the new Cathedral we’re building in Raleigh:

It’s not just that the architecture was bad. It was a modern day iconoclasm that was directed by the bishops themselves. And again its genesis was the subordination of the Holy Spirit and the elevation of the human mind. It makes our thinking about God to be the highest value. It is a dis-incarnate philosophy. Unfortunately it’s not a coincidence that many Catholic churches are all but indistinguishable from your typical Calvinist church.

The Fathers would walk into your churches and be truly amazed at their beauty. After all, they met in secret in private homes, in the catacombs, and by the banks of rivers where there was water for baptizing their converts, so our churches, yours and mine, would amaze them equally.

But then they would ask your bishops and patriarchs about their communion with the See of Peter, and hearing the negative responses, they would walk out because knowing that you are separated from Rome, they would not think they were in a true church at all.

End. Of. Story.

Considering many saints including Doctors of your Church spent parts of the ecclesiastical career out of communion with Rome this claim falls quite flat.

 

[GaryTaylor]

OK here’s a point by St Basil that should be understood and read.

They [the Eunomians] assign the words ‘from whom’ to God the Father as if this expression was his one special allotment; for God the Son they select the phrase ‘through whom’, and for the Holy Spirit ‘in which’, and they say that this assignment of prepositions must never be interchanged, in order that… one prepositional phrase is always made to indicate a corresponding nature.

Cf.On the Holy Spirit 1.4; English text used, trans. David Anderson (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press,1980). Indeed, much of this treatise deals with the interchangeability of prepositions with reference to the three Persons. In this way, he was able to justify his preferred doxology. Whereas the Eunomians believed that specific prepositions had to be used when referring to Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively, St Basil argued, based on the Scriptures, that there were no such laws since the Bible uses different prepositions to depict the intra-Trinitarian relations.

Of course the corresponding nature isn’t in question, but as we see it very well could be.

 

[Seraphim73]

You ever read St Basil Against Eunomius? You should read his understanding of the Trinity. Anyway I’m not sure what your talking about, the conversation went from a very common terminology of the three persons of the Trinity to blaming Catholics and Protestants for your cultural natural issues. We have to use this terminology so you can understand.

Im sorry your upset with Catholics and Protestants but you have your own issues as we all do. We shouldn’t look outside ourselves in this regard but within

I’m not upset with anybody about anything. I’m simply pointing out the bad fruits of the addition of the filioque. That has to be part of the discussion or the discussion is pointless.

 

[Seraphim73]

Dead. Wrong.

The Didache

After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Do you see that, Joey?

This ancient document reveals that in the Early Church - which you claim to be preserving while accusing Catholics of abandonment - baptism was performed by immersion in running water (a river) or a pool or by pouring if necessary.

Today, Catholics recognize that immersion, pouring or sprinkling are all valid forms of baptism, and your assertion that the Catholic Church has abandoned the practice of the Early Church is proven to be false.

And if you will notice, Randy, that is the third option only if the others are not available. You don’t take the exception and make it the rule. For many, many centuries the rule in the Roman Church was immersion as witnessed by the baptismal pools in many ancient Roman churches.

 

[Seraphim73]

Is this a result of false teaching? Or simply a lack of teaching? What you pose is a non sequitur.

Then the lack of teaching is absolutely staggering. But that’s not really the case. The liturgy and the Creed themselves are didactic. When you water down the liturgy and alter the Creed you can’t help but get incorrect beliefs. In fact it can’t be any other way.

Like you, they have left the sphere of influence of the Catholic Church. Until you both return, there is not much we can do for you other than pray.

And yet you accept no possibility at all that Catholic teaching had anything to do with the Reformation.

I’ve argued about this at length with Baptists in the Apologetics subforum. We can dance if you think you can keep up. :nope:

Luckily the steps are easy to follow. John baptized by immersion. The Apostles baptized by immersion. The early Church baptized by immersion. The Roman Church baptized by immersion. Now you’ve changed that.

Catholic children are confirmed and receive the Eucharist, and the Catholic laity receive the cup.

In the Latin Church infants are not chrismated and do not received Communion. And for many many centuries the Cup was never offered to the laity. Now it is a option, one that the pastor is free to not exercise.

However, in making these claims, you admit that you deny the authority of the Church to make such decisions. That is the fruit of your denial of the Papacy. See my signature for more details.

The fruits are our faithfulness to the Apostolic faith and practice.

The loss of entire…do you think this was by choice or by force? Perhaps you would benefit from reading about what happened to Catholics under the might of the English crown.

But where were the seeds of that movement? Could it be in the subordination of the Spirit and the elevation of man?

I will acknowledge that the architecture of the 70’s and 80’s was pretty bad…perhaps driven by the desire to create a big space for little money. But Catholic architecture is back. Here’s the new Cathedral we’re building in Raleigh:

It’s not just that the architecture was bad. It was a modern day iconoclasm. And again its genesis was in the elevation of the human mind. It makes our thinking about God to be the highest value. It is a dis-incarnate philosophy. Unfortunately it’s not a coincidence that many Catholic churches are all but indistinguishable from your typical Calvinist church.

The Fathers would walk into your churches and be truly amazed at their beauty. After all, they met in secret in private homes, in the catacombs, and by the banks of rivers where there was water for baptizing their converts, so our churches, yours and mine, would amaze them equally.

But then they would ask your bishops and patriarchs about their communion with the See of Peter, and hearing the negative responses, they would walk out because knowing that you are separated from Rome, they would not think they were in a true church at all.

End. Of. Story.

Considering many saints including Doctors of your Church spent parts of the ecclesiastical career out of communion with Rome this claim falls quite flat.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then the lack of teaching is absolutely staggering. But that’s not really the case. The liturgy and the Creed themselves are didactic. When you water down the liturgy and alter the Creed you can’t help but get incorrect beliefs. In fact it can’t be any other way.

The problem of catechesis is more complex than this thread should bear. If you really want to discuss what happened, start another thread.

And yet you accept no possibility at all that Catholic teaching had anything to do with the Reformation.

Formal teaching? No, not at all. Sorry, that’s simply not what happened and even Lutherans would acknowledge this.

Luckily the steps are easy to follow. John baptized by immersion. The Apostles baptized by immersion. The early Church baptized by immersion. The Roman Church baptized by immersion. Now you’ve changed that.

Oops. John’s baptism was not Christian Baptism.
Oops. The Philippian jailer was baptized by Paul in the middle of the night. How?
Oops. Not exclusively according to the Didache.

This argument is going to end very badly for you, Joey. I promise.

In the Latin Church infants are not chrismated and do not received Communion. And for many many centuries the Cup was never offered to the laity. Now it is a option, one that the pastor is free to not exercise.

Technically, it is up to the Bishop. But so what? to ALL or these points. Either the leadership of the Church has authority in these disciplines or not.

However, I would be fascinated to read anything you may have from the Fathers regarding chrismation and the reception of a little teeny bit of host and cup on the lips of an infant.

The fruits are our faithfulness to the Apostolic faith and practice.

No, you are faithful to your interpretation of them.

But where were the seeds of that movement? Subordinate the Holy Spirit and elevate a man in His place. The Protestants simply took that principle and applied it generally to every man instead of just one man in Rome.

Really? The Pope is now part of the Trinity supplanting the Holy Spirit? What websites have YOU been visiting?

It’s not just that the architecture was bad. It was a modern day iconoclasm that was directed by the bishops themselves. And again its genesis was the subordination of the Holy Spirit and the elevation of the human mind. It makes our thinking about God to be the highest value. It is a dis-incarnate philosophy. Unfortunately it’s not a coincidence that many Catholic churches are all but indistinguishable from your typical Calvinist church.

Careful. You’re going to hurt the feelings of all the Calvinists following this thread.

Considering many saints including Doctors of your Church spent parts of the ecclesiastical career out of communion with Rome this claim falls quite flat.

Of course it does, Joey. Of course it does.

So, how would the Fathers stepping into your Church judge it? Let’s see, on the one hand you have beautiful icons (the Fathers would be seeing these images of themselves for the first time - which would no doubt cause great embarrassment to men of humility), but on the other you are not in communion with Rome.

Hmmm…

Icons or Connection with the Chair of Peter?

Architecture or Communion with Rome?



Wow, that IS a coin toss, isn’t it?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not upset with anybody about anything. I’m simply pointing out the bad fruits of the addition of the filioque. That has to be part of the discussion or the discussion is pointless.

I don’t see it, and the reformation had nothing to do with the Trinity. Thus the burden of proof remains yours. Basically as others have indicated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And if you will notice, Randy, that is the third option only if the others are not available. You don’t take the exception and make it the rule. For many, many centuries the rule in the Roman Church was immersion as witnessed by the baptismal pools in many ancient Roman churches.

But you agree that it was permitted. And valid.

So, you argue for an ancient custom which is a church discipline and not a doctrine. Disciplines can and do change because the Church has real authority.

Do all Orthodox Churches have rivers flowing past them? The one not far from my home doesn’t. So, were YOU baptized in a cold, running river or stream? Or in a indoor pool of some sort? If you were baptized inside a Church in a pool, then YOU accepted the second option as your rule, and it is hypocritical for you to claim that Rome has not adhered to ancient practice when you have not chosen baptism in cold, living water, either.

We both know that our Churches have valid forms of baptism…you just want something to hold against Rome, but this dog won’t hunt.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In worshiping God of God we profess the distinction of persons- St Basil, The Holy Spirit, 375-AD The Faith of the Fathers pg 18 Vol-II Jergens

 

[Wandile]

I’m sorry but we are not the one with the misunderstanding. Even today 75% of Roman Catholics here in the US believe that the Holy Spirit is not a person! And about the same percentage of Protestants, who themselves were born from Roman Catholic thought, believe the same. And I don’t think it’s any coincidence that all of the changes that occurred in Roman Catholicism, from abandoning immersion for baptism, to delaying the reception of children and denying them the Eucharist, to denying the Sacred Cup to the laity, all of the post schism dogmas and even to breaking communion with every single ancient Apostolic see and the loss of entire Western nations to the Reformation. All of this happened after this addition into the Creed. And that spirit continues to this day with the complete rewrite of the liturgy and modern day iconoclasm, with parish after parish ripping out sacred images or putting up new, plain white washed buildings. In fact, quite to our astonishment, you continue to make your churches and liturgies look more and more like Protestant buildings and services.

You say a saint could walk into a church and immediately recognize it. Not only would a saint from the first millennium not recognize a modern Roman Catholic church a Catholic from 1950 wouldn’t recognize it. And the most amazing thing of all, not only is that not considered a problem, it’s considered a virtue! You have to look at the fruits and in this case the fruits simply are not good.

Oh come on! This false information has been dealt with before… The fallacy of composition remember? I can guarantee you that not even 2% of American Catholics were polled in that survey and yet you continue to sprout that flawed survey as if its infallible.

Secondly the church of Jerusalem of the 1 century recognize any church today bases on liturgy and the dress etc… Probably not because they were much simpler. Change in liturgy or buildings isn’t a bad thing. It’s simply change… We grow with age and do not stagnate lest the church be said not to be alive

It seems like you blaming all problems on the filioque. Why not blame world war 2 on the filioque also since it was after the schism

Secondly we are in communion with the See of Antioch as well as the Chaldeans (legitimate line of the Church of the east) . Secondly neither are the EO in communion with all the ancient sees. You are not in communion with Rome nor are you in communion with Antioch (the modern antiochan orthodox church is a rival claimant raised by Constantinople to counter the legitimate line of Antioch as well as the majority of the faithful that came into communion with Rome). Lastly you aren’t in communion with Alexandria again as the current EO Pope of Alexandria was a rival claimant to the see occupied by the legitimate holder, the Oriental Orthodox Pope of Alexandria so your criticism delegitimizes your church also:shrug:

The True Church will never stop being attacked by Satan. Since the days of the Church’s infancy, divisions have occurred. When heresies stop attacking your communion you need to question yourself. The early church barely ever breathed before a new heresy would come and afflict it. This carried on post -schism I’m the Catholic Church and to this day its continues. Just a thought… So again your criticism of the western church and its history of heresies post schism afflicting it is not anything foreign from the pre-schism churc. Rather it is a continuation what happened!

 

[Seraphim73]

But you agree that it was permitted. And valid.

So, you argue for an ancient custom which is a church discipline and not a doctrine. Disciplines can and do change because the Church has real authority.

Do all Orthodox Churches have rivers flowing past them? The one not far from my home doesn’t. So, were YOU baptized in a cold, running river or stream? Or in a indoor pool of some sort? If you were baptized inside a Church in a pool, then YOU accepted the second option as your rule, and it is hypocritical for you to claim that Rome has not adhered to ancient practice when you have not chosen baptism in cold, living water, either.

We both know that our Churches have valid forms of baptism…you just want something to hold against Rome, but this dog won’t hunt.

No hypocrisy Randy. The Apostolic practice was to baptize by triple immersion. And it was the practice of the Roman Church for over a millennium. That’s the bottom line. Second this is not about discipline. Lex orandi lex credendi. When you change how you worship you change the belief. There is a reason these things that seem so insignificant to those who aren’t in the Church are guarded so carefully. A small deviation today leads to massive deviation tomorrow. I think again this is shown quite clearly in the direction the modern Catholic Church is going. You ask what is “valid” or “necessary.”

That is the exact same questions the Protestants asked, they just came up with a slightly smaller list that you have. It’s not about that, it’s about how do we worship God and proclaim His kingdom. Take baptism in particular. When we are baptized we die to this world. We are dead and buried. That’s why being immersed in the water is so important. You place so little significance on why things were done the way there were. The Church had a good reason for adopting the patterns of worship it did. Those patterns safeguard the Apostolic faith. And Rome followed every single one of those practices when it was still a bastion of orthodoxy. So we’ll never view these variations as some small and unimportant deviation in practice.

 

[Wandile]

No hypocrisy Randy. The Apostolic practice was to baptize by triple immersion. And it was the practice of the Roman Church for over a millennium. That’s the bottom line. Second this is not about discipline. Lex orandi lex credendi. When you change how you worship you change the belief. There is a reason these things that seem so insignificant to those who aren’t in the Church are guarded so carefully. A small deviation today leads to massive deviation tomorrow. I think again this is shown quite clearly in the direction the modern Catholic Church is going. You ask what is “valid” or “necessary.”

That is the exact same questions the Protestants asked, they just came up with a slightly smaller list that you have. It’s not about that, it’s about how do we worship God and proclaim His kingdom. Take baptism in particular. When we are baptized we die to this world. We are dead and buried. That’s why being immersed in the water is so important. You place so little significance on why things were done the way there were. The Church had a good reason for adopting the patterns of worship it did. Those patterns safeguard the Apostolic faith. And Rome followed every single one of those practices when it was still a bastion of orthodoxy. So we’ll never view these variations as some small and unimportant deviation in practice.

Discipline changes. And our new disciplines have their own meanings for why they are the norm now.

secondly when Rome was the bastion of orthodoxy, she taught the filioque
… A teaching your church today denies or at least misunderstands … Some in your communion teach it while others deny it with rigorist heretical positions.

 

[Seraphim73]

Discipline changes. And our new disciplines have their own meanings for why they are the norm now.

secondly when Rome was the bastion of orthodoxy, she taught the filioque
… A teaching your church today denies or at least misunderstands … Some in your communion teach it while others deny it with rigorist heretical positions.

Rome did not add the filioque to the Creed until after 1054 my friend.