In between Catholic Church and Orthodox Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter EIF5A
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe370 said:
Fair enough…I digress…🙂
Click to expand...
I’m saying that because I’ve already been in lengthy forum debates where everyone brings out their guns, ie. Church Father quotes, trying to prove their doctrines and dogmas from Church Father quotes. How different is that from Catholic vs. Protestant debates on Scripture? You bring your verses, they bring their verses. It is like a Pokemon battle…

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/408654_425455130857788_66001239_n.jpg
 
How different is that from Catholic vs. Protestant debates on Scripture?
Click to expand...
The difference is Protestants usually take Scripture as if its always been there. While Catholics know not everything is in Scripture.

MJ
 
ConstantineTG said:
I’m saying that because I’ve already been in lengthy forum debates where everyone brings out their guns, ie. Church Father quotes, trying to prove their doctrines and dogmas from Church Father quotes. How different is that from Catholic vs. Protestant debates on Scripture? You bring your verses, they bring their verses. It is like a Pokemon battle…

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/408654_425455130857788_66001239_n.jpg
Click to expand...
I’d choose St. Maximos the Hut Burner. 😛
 
Hmmm … makes me wonder why I didn’t know that there was a saint called “the butt burner” back when I was choosing a confirmation name. :hmmm:
 
Kirovsakya said:
…
After that exercise, if you have ANY doubts, forget about Orthodoxy. Go ahead and join the RCC, apply yourself fully and learn everything you can.
Click to expand...
So, by the same logic, I or another Catholic poster might say “If you have any doubts about Catholicism, join Orthodoxy.” 🤷
 
Peter_J said:
Hmmm … makes me wonder why I didn’t know that there was a saint called “the butt burner” back when I was choosing a confirmation name. :hmmm:
Click to expand...
What do you find polemical about Fr. Ryland? He is a convert and investigated both sides before going RC…what do you have against him?
 
I didn’t say “I have something against him”, I said that he’s polemical.

If you want a conversation about him, why don’t you start talking about him, rather than expecting someone else to?
 
Peter_J said:
I didn’t say “I have something against him”, I said that he’s polemical.

If you want a conversation about him, why don’t you start talking about him, rather than expecting someone else to?
Click to expand...
You are the one who brought up the subject of him being polemical…so what is polemical about him?

How about it…answer the question…🤷

Do you think he was not sincere in his investigation of both sides and his decision?
 
Peter_J said:
No.

And don’t bother trying the chair on me, my will is too strong.
Click to expand...
What chair?

So you have no proof he is polemical…it is just your opinion then? But then your opinion should be formed by facts…looks like there was no basis for you saying he is polemical…you just said in jest…🤷
 
^^ No, but I do get tired of stuff posted with no purpose other than being a nuisance.

Question for you: given what you’ve said in your last two posts, can we expect that you are going to back up your opinion about Ryland (which is what I was responding to in the first place)? I get the impression that your plan is to just keep harassing me.
 
Peter_J said:
^^ No, but I do get tired of stuff posted with no purpose other than being a nuisance.

Question for you: given what you’ve said in your last two posts, can we expect that you are going to back up your opinion about Ryland (which is what I was responding to in the first place)? I get the impression that your plan is to just keep harassing me.
Click to expand...
What? I had no opinion of Fr. Ryland (and do show some respect for him, his an ordained priest)…you are the one who said he is polemical.

All I did was offer articles written by him for the benefit of the OP, because he investigated both sides…with the hope that the OP can learn something…I did not write any opinion…if I, can you post what I wrote is an opinion of Fr. Ryland?

You, on the other hand…said he is polemical…so I asked…what made him polemical to you…which you evaded answering so far…🤷

Did you err saying Fr. Ryland is polemical or not?
 
Kirovsakya said:
It is heresy because the doctrine itself is false. It corrupts Trinitarian doctrine by redefining the relationship between the persons within the Trinity. This is not trivial. It is an attack upon the most fundamental foundation of all Christian doctrine.

The study of history, politics, dominance and submission is useful in establishing the human sources of various heresies and what motivated the players. Do not allow yourself to be sidetracked. Regardless of what motivated the heretic - heresy is heresy - before it is ever promulgated.
Click to expand...
Heresy? Really? It corrupts nothing!
 
EIF5A said:
Is it a heresy because the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, or because of the way “and the Son” was added?
Click to expand...
It is a heresy not mainly because of the Clause itself, which can be understood in an Orthodox sense (although it remains misleading and divisive) but because of the definitions of the Roman councils of Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence to defend it. These councils “defined” that the Spirit proceeds eternally and (worse) equally from the Father and the Son, acting together as one principle. This creates two principles of origin in the Trinity, the Father and the Father-Son. It comes very close to creating a fourth person, again, the Father-Son. In the patristic and Orthodox view of the Trinity, the Persons are never divided up this way, and are never confused this way. Two Persons of the Trinity do not act in isolation from a third. The Father is the unique source of both the Son and the Spirit, and, other than that, what is said concerning the Trinity must either be said of the entire Trinity together, or of one of the Persons, never of two of them.

It really comes down to taking the words of Christ in John 15:26, where He draws a distinction between the eternal procession of the Spirit (“from the Father”) and the sending of the Son from the Father and the Son, seriously.
 
Peter_J said:
Pope Leo I, perhaps, although you can’t expect an exact correspondence of language across so many centuries.
Click to expand...
Remember that Orthodoxy does not make dogmas out of a few quotes. Whenever someone says something that may sound like supporting heterodox belief, we always look at the entire message, the entire context. There is always a holistic view in Orthodoxy. We don’t merely take a quote and base our belief on it.
 
Schism_hater said:
It is a heresy not mainly because of the Clause itself, which can be understood in an Orthodox sense
Click to expand...
True.

I always find it interesting that in the English (for example) creedal-text used by Latin Catholics, it’s “who proceeds from the Father and the Son”.

Maybe I could create a hoax that the pope is thinking about changing it to “who proceeds *eternally *from the Father and the Son” … and then, when I reveal that it was just a hoax, the Orthodox will realize that “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” isn’t so bad after all.

😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top