R
- Status
T
tryphon
Guest
I was baptized in Milan in 1950, according to the Ambrosian (Catholic rite), by immersion.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
So in understanding the dialogue we are talking how strict form should be as understood by Canon and authority and historically.
We can become so strict with form that we will for example be Baptizing in cold Alaskan water by immersion? What should the temperature of the water be? And so forth through the sequence.
We acknowledge like with eucharist celebration this has and will continue to be done in remote areas and with minimal access to water and so forth. If we acknowledge this is a reality, which it most certainly is, then we are abiding by the tradition for the tradition sake… Not do to any theological implications.
Ironic conversation contrasting strict traditional endorsement with divinization and its requirements.
We can become so strict with form that we will for example be Baptizing in cold Alaskan water by immersion? What should the temperature of the water be? And so forth through the sequence.
We acknowledge like with eucharist celebration this has and will continue to be done in remote areas and with minimal access to water and so forth. If we acknowledge this is a reality, which it most certainly is, then we are abiding by the tradition for the tradition sake… Not do to any theological implications.
Ironic conversation contrasting strict traditional endorsement with divinization and its requirements.
P
prodromos
Guest
There are a number of cases in the Orthodox Church where baptismal fonts have miraculously filled with water on Pascha for the baptism of the catechumens, and then just as miraculously emptied afterwards. No plumbing involved.
I wonder if those same scientists mentioned above have also determined that there was no way Jesus could possibly have fed 5000 people with just a few loaves of bread.
There were many signs and wonders which accompanied the apostles’ preaching. Providing enough water to baptise 3000 people would be a drop in the ocean for the creator of the universe.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Amen! Every word.
But where was the water? There had to be something to hold it, and this is what the Archaeologists do not find. And here’s a thought:
3000 people baptized / 11 Apostles = 273 baptisms per apostle
273 baptisms x 3 minutes = 818 minutes or 13.6 hours
Peter began preaching at 9:00am. Assume the Baptisms started at 10. They didn’t finish until 11:00pm.
Unless the people got in line and they were baptized by POURING which would go more quickly.
S
spina1953
Guest
It seems that today we here in the Gospel that while John the Baptist Baptized with water God will baptize with the Holy Spirit. I can understand water being the symbol but in reality how much water needs to be used? It just seems to me that it is not how much water is used but the formula. Besides I have not seen anywhere in the NT where it says one is to be Baptized by immersion as a specific means that one has to be baptized. So, to me it is not how water is used but the formula that Jesus said to do which is to Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So which then is the more important how much water is used or the formula?
P
prodromos
Guest
You forget that Jesus had appointed another seventy in Luke 10
D
dronald
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not forgotten…just hadn’t considered that anyone else would have baptized on the day of Pentecost.
In Acts 1, we see that there were about 120 believers who gathered in the Upper Room. some of them were obviously women. So, if all of the men took part in baptizing, then the baptisms of 3,000 people would have gone much more quickly.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The “Myth” of Unity: A Response to a 2009 Address Given at St Vladimir’s Seminary
monomakhos.com/essay-bin/the-%E2%80%9Cmyth%E2%80%9D-of-unity-a-response-to-a-2009-address-given-at-st-vladimir%E2%80%99s-seminary/
S
Seraphim73
Guest
So now you quote one of the biggest flame throwers and rumor mongers in the Orthodox blogosphere and think you’re making a point.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It goes a lot deeper than that, don’t you think?So now you quote one of the biggest flame throwers and rumor mongers in the Orthodox blogosphere and think you’re making a point.
I posted that here because of all the previous posts, but this thread is on the 'Filioque".
We can take this to another thread.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No thanks. You can keep it.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I didn’t think it was slick either.So now you quote one of the biggest flame throwers and rumor mongers in the Orthodox blogosphere and think you’re making a point.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As is my custom, I would like to mis-represent the shoddy scholarship of others as follows:
AD 325 – Nicaea (formulated the Nicene Creed)
AD 381 – Constantinople I (made changes to the Nicene Creed)
AD 431 – Ephesus (prohibited changes made to the Nicene Creed)
AD 451 – Chalcedon (clarified Ephesus’ prohibition by approving changes made for clarification by Constantinople)
AD 1438 – Florence (added additional clarification to Nicene Creed as authorized by Chalcedon according to precedent of Constantinople)
The Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of new creeds. It stated:
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized. (Definition of the Faith at Nicaea)
Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople in 381. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.
Ephesus’s prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the clarifying material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated,
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city–the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).
Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.
Therefore, according to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also.
Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) had the authority to add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession; therefore, the Creed was changed, and the council ruled that the addition of the words “and the Son” was valid.
AD 325 – Nicaea (formulated the Nicene Creed)
AD 381 – Constantinople I (made changes to the Nicene Creed)
AD 431 – Ephesus (prohibited changes made to the Nicene Creed)
AD 451 – Chalcedon (clarified Ephesus’ prohibition by approving changes made for clarification by Constantinople)
AD 1438 – Florence (added additional clarification to Nicene Creed as authorized by Chalcedon according to precedent of Constantinople)
The Council of Ephesus (431) prohibited the making of new creeds. It stated:
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Holy Spirit at Nicaea. Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges, and if they are laymen they are to be anathematized. (Definition of the Faith at Nicaea)
Note that Ephesus referred to the creed as composed by the Fathers at Nicaea (325), not as modified at Constantinople in 381. This is significant because the final portion of the Nicene Creed, which deals with the Holy Spirit and contains the filioque clause, was not composed until the First Council of Constantinople (381). If the prohibition of Ephesus undermined the modern Catholic creed, it undermines the Eastern Orthodox creed no less, since the Eastern Orthodox version includes the material on the Holy Spirit as written at Constantinople I. It is inconsistent for the Eastern Orthodox to cite Ephesus about the filioque clause when all of the material on the Holy Spirit was added to the creed that was formulated at Nicaea.
Ephesus’s prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the clarifying material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated,
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city–the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).
Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils.
Therefore, according to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also.
Thus, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (1438-45) had the authority to add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession; therefore, the Creed was changed, and the council ruled that the addition of the words “and the Son” was valid.
K
KnitNut
Guest
No kidding. Randy, are you familiar with the concept of plagiarism? Even high school students know better than to cut & paste an entire paper and submit it as their own, without attribution and verbatim at that. I found this text all over the internet. I also note that you’re not interacting with it, just slapping it down with a trowel as though you’ve settled the matter. For all the bloviating in public, consider how many you might be alarming & pushing toward that which you decry. The PMs are going in both directions, I assure you.
There have been many substantial replies to you (in your tiresome # of “gotcha-attempt” threads) which you ignore in your quest to “win” by…well…word count, or something. Whose ideas are you parroting now?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
With good reason. But we’ll get back to that.
First, a thought or two about forum-based apologetics. Some questions that are posed by visitors to this forum (or any other forum, for that matter) appear again and again, and again. For example, do you have any idea how many times Protestants ask us why we Catholics worship Mary?
There are three possible ways to address this repetition.
- Write a fresh, original response each and every time.
- Write one original response, post it on a third-party site and link to it.
- Write one original response, store it as a file on my hard drive and recycle it as needed.
Option #2 sounds great, and more than a few CAF members have taken this approach. However, I have observed over the years here, that people RARELY follow a link to read original material.
Option #3 is my preferred approach. I have lots of original material stored on my hard drive and I simply use it over and over as needed. For example, the posts about Peter as the Royal Steward? All my stuff.
Other times, I don’t bother to re-invent the wheel. There is a wealth of information in the Catholic Answers library as well as on other sites as you have noted. Now, there are two ways to handle this material: with sourcing or without.
Normally, I try to provide sourcing (Title, author, link or other standard bibliographical data - as much as I have available). If you compare my posts with those of most other members of CAF, you’ll see that I have a pretty good track record in this regard.
However, I have also had people say, “I don’t read anything written by Catholic Answers” or “I didn’t bother to read that because it was cut & pasted from another site.” So even with credit given to the original author people won’t read it. That’s no good.
So the other option is to simply give the material for the sake of the soul reading it without any link or source because they need the information.
I’m not getting paid by the hour or by the word to be here, and I don’t give two hoots what anyone thinks of me personally. I will say that I get more kudos by PM than you probably care to imagine. But whatever. I’m happy to help others because others first helped me.
To repeat, I’m not in this for the money and I don’t need glory. I want you to hear the truth, and I will present it in anyway necessary to try to get you to hear it. Okay?
If you are truly observant, you would have noticed that I did not care for the form in which I found that material, so I re-ordered some paragraphs and added some clarification (including the timeline at the top) to make it easier to read and understand. I’m all about making things simple whenever possible.
Perhaps. There are Catholics as well as Eastern Catholics who are not happy with the fact that I won’t simply “make nice” with the EO. Popes have been trying to extend a warm welcome for quite a while, and all we’ve gotten in return is a stiff-arm and a cold shoulder.
Do you honestly believe that some little old [Russian] lady from Pasadena is going to become a Catholic simply because some guy was very sweet to her on the Internet? That’s just a guilt-trip designed to get me to stop pointing out the errors in Orthodoxy. Why are you here? To cozy up to us Latins? To help some Anglicans see the errors of the Reformation? No, you’re here because you want to talk to Catholics. Well, MOST of them will not join these threads, and the reason is lack of fruit. Pause and think about that.
Long enough. You want to chat about subjects you consider important? Okay. You found me. Just don’t whine about me when you don’t like how I “play”.
There have been replies, but no answers.
Oh, and that particular piece was sourced here.
So, I’m providing Catholic Answers on Catholic Answers’ own forum using Catholic Answers’ own material. If you found it elsewhere on the web, that says a lot about the great reputation of CA, doesn’t it?
Now, did you have any thoughts on the timeline and argument presented in the post, Knitnut?
Thanks in advance.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
With good reason. But we’ll get back to that.
First, a thought or two about forum-based apologetics. Some questions that are posed by visitors to this (or any other forum, for that matter) appear again and again, and again. For example, do you have any idea how many times Protestants ask us why we Catholics worship Mary?
There are three possible ways to address this repetition.
Option #1 sounds great until you have done it a few dozen times.
- Write a fresh, original response each and every time.
- Write one original response, post it on a third-party site and link to it.
- Write one original response, store it as a file on my hard drive and recycle it as needed.
Option #2 sounds great, and more than a few CAF members have taken this approach. However, I have observed over the years here, that people RARELY follow a link to read original material.
Option #3 is my preferred approach. I have lots of original material stored on my hard drive and I simply use it over and over as needed. For example, the posts about Peter as the Royal Steward? All my stuff.
Other times, I don’t bother to re-invent the wheel. There is a wealth of information in the Catholic Answers library as well as on other sites as you have noted. Now, there are two ways to handle this material: with sourcing or without.
Normally, I try to provide sourcing (Title, author, link or other standard bibliographical data - as much as I have available). If you compare my posts with those of most other members of CAF, you’ll see that I have a pretty good track record in this regard.
However, I have also had people say, “I don’t read anything written by Catholic Answers” or “I didn’t bother to read that because it was cut & pasted from another site.” So even with credit given to the original author people won’t read it. That’s no good.
So the other option is to simply give the material for the sake of the soul reading it without any link or source because they need the information.
I’m not getting paid by the hour or by the word to be here, and I don’t give two hoots what anyone thinks of me personally. I will say that I get more kudos by PM than you probably care to imagine. But whatever. I’m happy to help others because others first helped me.
To repeat, I’m not in this for the money and I don’t need glory. I want you to hear the truth, and I will present it in anyway necessary to try to get you to hear it. Okay?
If you are truly observant, you would have noticed that I did not care for the form in which I found that material, so I re-ordered some paragraphs and added some clarification (including the timeline at the top) to make it easier to read and understand. I’m all about making things simple whenever possible.
Perhaps. There are Catholics as well as Eastern Catholics who are not happy with the fact that I won’t simply “make nice” with the EO. Popes have been trying to extend a warm welcome for quite a while, and all we’ve gotten in return is a stiff-arm and a cold shoulder.
Do you honestly believe that some little old Russian lady in Pasadena is going to become a Catholic simply because some guy was very sweet to her on the Internet? That’s just a guilt-trip designed to get me to stop pointing out the errors in Orthodoxy. Why are you here? To cozy up to us Latins? To help some Anglicans see the errors of the Reformation? No, you’re here because you want to talk to Catholics. Well, MOST of them will not join these threads, and the reason is lack of fruit. Pause and think about that.
Long enough. You want to chat about subjects you consider important? Okay. You found me. Just don’t whine about me when you don’t like how I “play”.
There have been replies, but no answers.
Oh, and that particular piece was sourced here.
So, I’m providing Catholic Answers on Catholic Answers’ own forum using Catholic Answers’ own material. If you found it elsewhere on the web, that says a lot about the great reputation of CA, doesn’t it?
Now, did you have any thoughts on the timeline and argument presented in the post, Knitnut?
Thanks in advance.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Well, this has been one of my prayers answered here, since 2005, which I have been trying to relate to the Orthodox and protestants who have been duped by a false diplomacy of words used by Orthodox to falsely claim the Roman Latin church has changed from Her Apostolic faith, when She never has. This post is God send, because so many times have I attempted to expose this truth from antiquity, which was met with the abuse that needs not be mentioned here, yet Carvadossi and others know our exchanges on this subject early on.
The changes and development of Church dogma and Creed since Post Constantinople, continued to remain Rock unchanged with the developing of new languages and philosophical ideas which test’s and attacked the Apostolic faith and continues. Jesus has never left Peter alone in every age while the faith is persecuted.
This sums up a prayer since 2005, thanks Randy
.
Thanks Randy, and Windel for your thread, which allowed one of prayers to be answered here on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.
I can rest now;
Peace be with you
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Happy to help, Gabriel. I appreciate your posts, as well.Well, this has been one of my prayers answered here, since 2005, which I have been trying to relate to the Orthodox and protestants who have been duped by a false diplomacy of words used by Orthodox to falsely claim the Roman Latin church has changed from Her Apostolic faith, when She never has. This post is God send, because so many times have I attempted to expose this truth from antiquity, which was met with the abuse that needs not be mentioned here, yet Carvadossi and others know our exchanges on this subject early on.
The changes and development of Church dogma and Creed since Post Constantinople, continued to remain Rock unchanged with the developing of new languages and philosophical ideas which test’s and attacked the Apostolic faith and continues. Jesus has never left Peter alone in every age while the faith is persecuted.
This sums up a prayer since 2005, thanks Randy
.
Thanks Randy, and Windel for your thread, which allowed one of prayers to be answered here on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception.
I can rest now;
Peace be with you
:tiphat:
- Status