Filioque??

  • Thread starter Thread starter totustuus2345
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Mardukm:
The Latins were invited by the BULGARIAN king
and then went for a better deal with Pope Nicolas, i.e. he went jurisdiction shopping, a canonical no-no.
You asked the question, "what were the Latins doing in Bulgaria? I answered. Thanks for proving my point.šŸ‘
If he was a claimant to the throne, he had to be Roman.
Do you mean a Greek Roman or a Latin Roman?
And said claimant also put the Orthodox Church up for sale, actually destroying icons to melt down for the gold and silver. The Romans said no sale, the Crusaders demanded their 20 pieces of silver, and the fight was on.
I don’t know if it is proper to say he ā€œput the Orthodox Church up for sale.ā€ The status quo of the day in the East was that the ruler decided the faith of his lands. When the Greeks did not want to unite with the Latins, by the incitement of its clerics, the new emperor could not keep his promises. So he had to renege on his promises to the Crusaders.

However, history records that the primary necessities of the Crusaders were funds and provisions. They were a tired, starved and materially depleted band. The last thing on their mind was uniting the Greek Church with the Latin Church - i.e., religious reasons were not the motivating factor. In fact, they had already disobeyed the Pope by travelling to Constantinople in the first place. When they sacked Constantinople, it was not as representatives of the Latin Church, but rather they were working for themselves - in angry desperation, yes, but in desperation nonetheless.
Nothing I guess.
You got that right.😃

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Aramis,
Unlikely; #1 is most likely, as the latin for such pendants-signatory is ā€œBullaā€ā€¦ they are still used, by the way, by the British College of Heralds as formal seals on patents of nobility and other formal documents. Likewise, the Vatican’s office of Heraldry also uses wax seals on heraldric documents.

For more information on the modern use of seals and bullas, I recommend Sir Arthur Fox-Davies, The Art of Heraldry. (Big book, if unabridged… 15 to 20 pounds… and yes, I own a copy!)
Thanks for the correction. Do you think they carried a seal separate from the parchment, and then attached the seal after they wrote the Bull? I’m just puzzled because the text of the Bull necessitates that they wrote it while at Constantinople, as there is reference to the events that occurred there (plus the fact that it indicates that the legates themselves wrote it).

Blessings,
Marduk.
 
Some might be puzzled at the text of the Bull which states ā€œā€¦an anathema which the most reverend Pope has proclaimed upon Michael and his followers.ā€

The anathema to which this clause refers was not the rash excommunication delivered by Humbert. There was actually a separate anathema that was proclaimed by Humbert and the Legates, separate from the Bull which they had written on their own. It ran:

Whoever has stubbornly opposed the faith of the Roman Church and its sacrifice, let them be anathema Maranatha, nor let them be considered a catholic Christian, but a prozymite heretic.
Let it be done, let it be done!


The source is the same as I gave above for the text of the Bull. The reason for the anathema, as others have already noted, was that some Easterns were rashly accusing the Latins of heresy for using unleavened bread.

This is the only anathema given by the Pope, and it was indeed already given by the Pope prior to the mission of the legates to Constantinople. There are two noteworthy things about this anathema:
  1. It does not mention anyone by name.
  2. It does not mention the filioque issue.
Some modern sources erroneously claim that the Bull of excommunication given by Humbert was already prepared prior to his mission to Constantinople (and prepared by the Pope at that!). That is completely false. The ONLY thing that was extant prior to Humbert’s mission was the anathema given above. The Bull of excommunication itself, however, was prepared by Humbert and the other legates while at Constantinople itself. The error might have arisen from the fact that the Bull, on the one hand, and the separate anathema from the Pope, on the other, were pronounced at the same time.

I hope that clears up a lot of misconceptions on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Aramis,

Thanks for the correction. Do you think they carried a seal separate from the parchment, and then attached the seal after they wrote the Bull? I’m just puzzled because the text of the Bull necessitates that they wrote it while at Constantinople, as there is reference to the events that occurred there (plus the fact that it indicates that the legates themselves wrote it).

Blessings,
Marduk.
It would be attached to the parchment before being sent, possibly partially filled out. Mostly because, once applied, it can not be removed. Likewise, it can not be emplaced if properly applied to the ribbon.

Such was common practice for envoys: fill in the last couple details after arrival.
 
Such was common practice for envoys: fill in the last couple details after arrival.
The legates’ excommunication text was a LOT more than ā€œlast couple of details.ā€šŸ˜ƒ

Blessings
 
The legates’ excommunication text was a LOT more than ā€œlast couple of details.ā€šŸ˜ƒ

Blessings
Rather than going around excommunicating Christians who want to say the creed as it was originally written, and then diverting a Crusade to Constantinople to loot and destroy their Churches, why don’t Catholics instead try to live in peace and harmony and charity with the Eastern Orthodox?
 
Rather than going around excommunicating Christians who want to say the creed as it was originally written, and then diverting a Crusade to Constantinople to loot and destroy their Churches, why don’t Catholics instead try to live in peace and harmony and charity with the Eastern Orthodox?
What a tasteless post. You should be ashamed.
 
In reading the historical accounts, it looks like the leaders of the RCC have unnecessarily caused a lot of hard feelings and problems in this area.
You believe the leaders of the RCC sanctioned the sacking of Constantinople?
 
I go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church and I know we do not have have the Filioque in the creed.

I have also read somewhere that Bishop Ware of the Orthodox state this is no longer an issues between Catholics and Orthodox.
 
I go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church and I know we do not have have the Filioque in the creed.

I have also read somewhere that Bishop Ware of the Orthodox state this is no longer an issues between Catholics and Orthodox.
Oh, I would say it still very much is an issue. Look at this thread, for instance.
 
LINGUISTIC differences, cannot you SEE it? ENGLISH is inadequate.
OOOO I can see it clearly, But obviously you don’t my freind, I can see it in three diffrent languages, and no diffrence between one and the other, EVEN in the inadequate English language, ā€œProceedā€ is and according to the dictionary ( since the English language is not my native tongue I must rely on some reliable sources such as the dictionary) "…to arise, originate, … "

And what the LORD said is crystal clear the Holy Spirit proceed from the FATHER.
Not, proceed from the ā€œFATHER and the SONā€ ( Filioque ).

In my opinion, anything more clearer then what the LORD said in John 15:26, is a brick fallen down from Heaven.
 
I go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church and I know we do not have have the Filioque in the creed.

I have also read somewhere that Bishop Ware of the Orthodox state this is no longer an issues between Catholics and Orthodox.
ā€œIFā€ bishop Ware had said it, it is been taken out of context, and not understand exactly what bishop ware is saying. BUT, assuming that he did, and I can believe that might have, and in this case it would be, because of the following:

Recently, an important, agreed statement has been made by the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, on October 25, 2003. This document The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?
  1. That the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use. 7. That the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those ā€œwho presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Sonā€ is no longer applicable
therfore if Bishop Ware had said anything in relation to that, it wouldnt be such as, ā€œOk RCs, the Orthodox accepts your interpretations of the Filioque, and it is no more a dividing isuueā€
 
What a tasteless post. You should be ashamed.
He should be ashamed of what? telling the truth the way it is? he was speaking historicaly.
YOU, you, as you claim to be a Ukrianian Catholic should know the history of the filioque and how much your forfathers got persecuted and suffer on the hands of the RCs and many times on the issue of the filioque.
Did you know that the Ukrianian church has Martyrs Saints who were killed on the hands of the RCs??? and you tell bobzills that he should be ashamed ??? it is you who should be ashamed, just as your late Pope was JPII and he had the boldness and the meekness to stand up confess it the way it is and say that he was even disgusted, not only ashamed, you would have been better off if you had followed your late pope meekness and honesty.
 
You believe the leaders of the RCC sanctioned the sacking of Constantinople?
The following account, taken from the archives at a Catholic university, indicate that Catholic bishops were involved:
Please see the article at Catholic Fordham University, Dana C. Munro, "The Fourth Crusade ", fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack

" Then it was announced to all the host that all the Venetian and every one else should go and hear the sermons on Sunday morning; [Apr 11, 1204] and they did so. Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos, and they showed to the pilgrims that the war was a righteous one; for the Greeks were traitors and murderers, and also disloyal, since they had murdered their rightful lord, and were worse than Jews. Moreover, the bishops said that, by the authority of God and in the name of the pope, they would absolve all who attacked the Greeks."…
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church [Hagia Sophia] be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so, great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with go , which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of t temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.
  1. Nay more, a certain harlot, a sharer in their guilt, a minister the furies, a servant of the demons, a worker of incantations and poisonings, insulting Christ, sat in the patriarch’s seat, singing an obscene song and dancing frequently. Nor, indeed, were these crimes committed and others left undone, on the ground that these were of lesser guilt, the others of greater. But with one consent all the most heinous sins and crimes were committed by all with equal zeal. Could those, who showed so great madness against God Himself have spared the honorable matrons and maidens or the virgins consecrated to God?
Nothing was more difficult and laborious than to soften by prayers, to render benevolent, these wrathful barbarians, vomiting forth bile at every unpleasing word, so that nothing failed to inflame their fury. Whoever attempted it was derided as insane and a man of intemperate language. Often they drew their daggers against any one who opposed them at all or hindered their demands.

No one was without a share in the grief. In the alleys, in the streets, in the temples, complaints, weeping, lamentations, grief, t groaning of men, the shrieks of women, wounds, rape, captivity, t separation of those most closely united. Nobles wandered about ignominiously, those of venerable age in tears, the rich in poverty. Thus it was in the streets, on the corners, in the temple, in the dens, for no place remained unassailed or defended the suppliants. All places everywhere were filled full of all kinds of crime. . Oh, immortal God, how great the afflictions of the men, how great the distress!"
" How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Anti-christ, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground. "
 
You asked the question, "what were the Latins doing in Bulgaria? I answered. Thanks for proving my point.šŸ‘
What, that the Latins were in Bulgaria under dubious circumstances (or do you approve of jurisdiction swapping?)?
Do you mean a Greek Roman or a Latin Roman?
What do you mean by a ā€œGreek Romanā€ or a ā€œLatin Roman.ā€?
I don’t know if it is proper to say he ā€œput the Orthodox Church up for sale.ā€ The status quo of the day in the East was that the ruler decided the faith of his lands.
Cuius regio, eius religio is a concept of the West. I know the selective Caesaropapism doesn’t like to be reminded ot that.
When the Greeks did not want to unite with the Latins, by the incitement of its clerics, the new emperor could not keep his promises. So he had to renege on his promises to the Crusaders.
I guess he shouldn’t have promised what wasn’t his to give. Btw, read what St. John of Damascus says about Caesar. We did.
However, history records that the primary necessities of the Crusaders were funds and provisions. They were a tired, starved and materially depleted band. The last thing on their mind was uniting the Greek Church with the Latin Church - i.e., religious reasons were not the motivating factor. In fact, they had already disobeyed the Pope by travelling to Constantinople in the first place. When they sacked Constantinople, it was not as representatives of the Latin Church, but rather they were working for themselves - in angry desperation, yes, but in desperation nonetheless.
Not going on a tangent on this one.
 
I go to a Ukrainian Catholic Church and I know we do not have have the Filioque in the creed.

I have also read somewhere that Bishop Ware of the Orthodox state this is no longer an issues between Catholics and Orthodox.
The good bishop is wrong.

Btw, he’s gotten more to the Anglican approach of things, like abortion and women priests. I don’t recommend the lastest edition of ā€œThe Orthodox Church.ā€ (the earlier editions are good).
 
[White Russian]
I don’t really want to get into this thread, as I do not have the background and reading material of all the thread subscribers. I am impressed by their research. However, my only comment I will make is that the above are not dogma or doctrine but ā€œdisciplines.ā€ Why the uproar?
For Photios,the Western disciplines amounted to heresies.
Also, on the Feast of St. Peter and Paul, at St. Paul Outside the Walls, Mass was celebrated by BXVI with Patriarch Bartholomew.
during the Mass, the Gospels were proclaimed by both Latin and Orthodox deacons. BXVI kissed the Gospels used by the Greek deacon and Bartholomew kissed the Gospels used by the latin deacon. NOW FOR THE REALLY BIG NEWS: The Greek formula of the Nicene Creed was recited. Hopefully, we are on the way.
That’s not big news,because the Catholic Church has never disowned the belief that the Father is the ultimate cause of the Spirit. But the Church also holds that the Spirit proceeds equally from both Father and Son.
 
He should be ashamed of what? telling the truth the way it is? he was speaking historicaly.
YOU, you, as you claim to be a Ukrianian Catholic should know the history of the filioque and how much your forfathers got persecuted and suffer on the hands of the RCs and many times on the issue of the filioque.
Did you know that the Ukrianian church has Martyrs Saints who were killed on the hands of the RCs??? and you tell bobzills that he should be ashamed ??? it is you who should be ashamed, just as your late Pope was JPII and he had the boldness and the meekness to stand up confess it the way it is and say that he was even disgusted, not only ashamed, you would have been better off if you had followed your late pope meekness and honesty.
I never claimed to be a Ukrainian Catholic.

Tell me, WHAT GOOD does bringing up the Sacking of Constantinople do?

Why does the topic of the Filioque need to digress to such a low point? THAT is what I was referring to. To drudge this up, just to slander the Church, is what he should be ashamed of.

What should I feel ashamed of? Do you think I somehow bare guilt for what happened 800 years ago? The sins of individuals 800 yrs. ago somehow make the entire Church of today, including me, including JPII, including Pope Benedict, guilty??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top