I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
While email is a form of communication it is not the only form of communication. I guess I’m still old school and go in person to the parishes and churches.
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
In fairness there are many in our society who barely understand computers and don’t think much of an email. I’d recommend phone calls or person-to-person as the best means of contact.
C
CharlesdeFoucld
Guest
I know you intended this as a very rough analogy, and I suppose it illustratessomething, but this comparison makes my teeth itch… I hope most Catholics had a similar reaction.
The rest of your post was very good.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
What makes your teeth itch?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Greetings Peter J; Your point is well taken. It should be recommended to all who are in a position such as the OP to take up a CCC (catechism of the Catholic Church) which possesses the** official** teachings and document references of the Catholic Church in minature.Hi Gabriel. After taking the time to read all the stuff in your last two posts … and with all due respect to you and all other Catholics who post here (of which I am one), this seems like a good time to remind readers like EIF5A that stuff posted here isn’t on par with official Catholic documents. I’m not denying that this forum is a great resource but … well put it this way: dotcoms, this one and others, have only been around for 2 decades, whereas the Catholic Church has been around for 2 millennia.
Do you know of any one Official source possessing such documents revealing the teachings and faith of the Orthodox Church’s? so as to recommend to such inquirers of Orthodoxy? Is there such a source of official documents in existence that all Orthodox church’s hold too? such as all Catholic Church hold to the CCC.
**A baptised/confirmed Catholic who is catechized in the basic sacramental economy of our Apostolic faith, possesses that “2 millennia” Catholic faith so as to share it with others here. When official documents are requested one does no harm to reference the CCC that possesses such “official documents” to begin with.
**
Peace be with you
D
dzheremi
Guest
No, that is highly incorrect, and very irregular if it did in fact happen. Assuming the Armenian you spoke with was a member of the canonical Armenian Apostolic Church (i.e., Armenian Orthodox, and not Armenian Catholic or some kind of Armenian Protestant), there is no reason why s/he would not be allowed to receive at a Coptic Orthodox Church. The two churches are in full communion with each other. See for instance this small snippet of a concelebrated liturgy featuring both Armenian and Coptic bishops celebrating together (as well as Syriac, Tewahedo, and Malankara Syriac bishops).
Apparently there were Armenians who came to the Coptic Church here in Albuquerque, NM before I moved here about two years ago (I haven’t seen any since I’ve been here, though).
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Prettie
strong words there Kirovsakya; I welcome your comments and opinions in the spirit of peace and hope to reach a dialogue among those who may by no fault of their own but by others who by ignorance, misunderstanding and lacking in communication to understand our differences of understanding. This medium serves as a good tool to reach such communications.Without de-threading the importance of the OP here, please allow me a brief comment in regards to the Credo.
First of all the Roman Catholic Church has always possessed the original Apostolic credo and didache which predates the Nicence Creed and the 7 ecumenical councils. We still pray and profess the original apostolic Creed that predates the Nicene Credo.
Secondly the church councils which you hold too, are the ones who added to this original Apostolic Creed which we Roman Catholics never left. Why did the councils add to our original Apostolic Credo? To defeat the Eastern heretics and Eastern heresies, your sister Church’s by the way who began to preach and teach a different Jesus.
The Nicene Creed developed from multiple councils which introduced new invented terminology such as “Trinity”, “Theotokos”, “ousis’s” which the original Apostolic Creed that our Church’s professed that predates the Nicence Creed and the Ecumenical Church Councils, never the less this creed defeated your Eastern heresies and heretics.
The Popes (bishop’s of Rome) approved the Nicene Creed, even thou we Roman Catholics never had any problem understanding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one God before your sister Eastern Church’s started to teach heterodoxy in the East. We had no problem with Nicene Creed which we profess today during our Liturgies, because this addition to our Apostolic Creed only clarified what we always believed, but in a new age and different understanding’s that required more clarification of our professed Catholic faith.
You see, you cannot get no more Orthodox than the original Apostles Creed, which the Roman Catholic Church never left this rock.
The reason for the “Filioque” was to defeat your Eastern Arian heresy that tried to infect the Latin Church, and the “Filioque” defeated these Eastern Arian heresy. We still need it today because your Eastern Arian heresy still exists in some parts of Western Christianity.
Filioque is never a heresy. Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the early Church Fathers who predate Constantinople all support the “filioque” without ever using the term. Same with Transubstantiation, it is taught and believed in by those early Church Fathers who predate Constantinople without ever using this new terminology which defeats heresies in the coming centuries after them. I only introduce this subject matter, so as to offer you another perspective from a Roman Catholic Church that was in existence since the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Peace be with you
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Prettie
Without de-threading the importance of the OP here, please allow me a brief comment in regards to the Credo.
First of all the Roman Catholic Church has always possessed the original Apostolic credo and didache which predates the Nicence Creed and the 7 ecumenical councils. We still pray and profess the original apostolic Creed that predates the Nicene Credo.
Secondly the church councils which you hold too, are the ones who added to this original Apostolic Creed which we Roman Catholics never left. Why did the councils add to our original Apostolic Credo? To defeat the Eastern heretics and Eastern heresies, your sister Church’s by the way who began to preach and teach a different Jesus.
The Nicene Creed developed from multiple councils which introduced new invented terminology such as “Trinity”, “Theotokos”, “ousis’s” to the original Apostolic Creed that our Church’s professed which predates the Nicence Creed and the Ecumenical Church Councils, never the less this Nicene creed defeated your Eastern heresies and heretics.
**The Popes (bishop’s of Rome) approved the Nicene Creed, even thou we Roman Catholics never had any problem understanding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one God before your sister Eastern Church’s started to teach heterodoxy in the East. **We had no problem with Nicene Creed which we profess today during our Liturgies, because this addition to our Apostolic Creed only clarified what we always believed, but in a new age and different understanding’s that required more clarification of our professed Catholic faith.
You see, you cannot get no more Orthodox than the original Apostles Creed, which the Roman Catholic Church never left this rock.
The reason for the “Filioque” was to defeat your Eastern Arian heresy that tried to infect the Latin Church, and the “Filioque” defeated these Eastern Arian heresy. We still need it today because your Eastern Arian heresy still exists in some parts of Western Christianity.
Filioque is never a heresy. Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the early Church Fathers who predate Constantinople all support the “filioque” without ever using the term. Same with Transubstantiation, it is taught and believed in by those early Church Fathers who predate Constantinople without ever using this new terminology which defeats heresies in the coming centuries after them. I only introduce this subject matter, so as to offer you another perspective from a Roman Catholic Church that was in existence since the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Peace be with you
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The Creed was altered because the original one wasn’t sufficient against the heresies. Even Arius professed the original Creed without going against what is said. Nothing in the original Creed affirms the eternal divinity of Christ.
biblehub.com/john/15-26.htm
John 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
Which scripture? This one?
biblehub.com/john/15-26.htm
John 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Is there a reason why everyone can’t agree on “from the Father through the Son”?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Yes.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Very good, So you admit that the Nicene creed was an addition to the original Apostolic Creed which the Roman Catholic Church always professed which predates the NIcene Creed. We in the West did not have a problem with the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit as one God. Your Eastern Church’s did have a faith problem with it, thus they added to the original creed.
I only introduced this to reveal to those Orthodox who make the false claim that the Nicene Creed is the Original Catholic Creed and that Rome has altered the Creed when Rome always kept the Original Apostolic Creed, and let it be known to those who hold such a false view that it was the Nicene Creed that added to the Original Apostolic Creed.
**Let us take baby steps here, so that the Orthodox understand their misgivings here and stop pointing the finger at Rome, when they got three fingers pointing right back at them.
**
Peace be with you
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The only one having misgivings here is you. You are acting as if Rome had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed. The Apostle’s Creed wasn’t even used in the Roman Church until the recent change in History. The Latin Mass exclusively uses the Nicene Creed.
Also you never addressed the fact that Scripture is explicitly clear from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds from. And Jesus himself said it.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
You see this why you require baby steps, you have jumped to false conclusions “again”. We recite the apostles creed at daily mass. We recite the Nicene creed on Sunday’s and Holy day’s of obligation.
Please don’t de-rail the Op’s important thread here, be productive to the subject matter or rant somewhere else.
My post addressed those Orthodox who falsely think “filioque” is a heresy? Do you think it is a heresy?
Please don’t tell me how I live my faith, and I won’t tell you what I think of your opinions.
Peace be with you
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes, I absolutely believe 100% it is a heresy. It is proven in Scripture and I have posted the exact passage where Jesus himself outlines the procession of the Holy Spirit.
You are talking about Mass. I am talking about the fact that the Latin Mass uses the Nicene Creed exclusively. The current use of the Apostle’s Creed has only been going around since the 70s.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m not derailing anything here. I’m responding to your false and polemic claims. You are the only one ranting here, you are ranting that the East is somehow wrong for using the Nicene Creed when Rome herself from the beginning agreed to the same creed and have exclusively used that same creed and at times without the Filioque, since the 4th Century.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Is “through the Son” doctrinally in error or does it represent yet another change that’s not allowed?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Both. Adding the Filioque fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship of the 3 persons of the Trinity. While there is some discussion to be had about the Roman claim that “procedit” has a different meaning in Latin than in Greek, remember that the Creed is meant to be a universal Creed that is recited by all Christians in communion with one another, and thus should mean the same thing. Any alterations were forbidden by the Second Ecumenical Council without the consent of another council that is universally accepted.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
First of all Constantine you have read falsehood into my posts. You have it all wrong. Let us speak simply here; The reason for the “filoque” was to defeat the Arians who were claiming Jesus was not God.
The filioque originally was inserted to confirm and prove from the Nicene Creed that Jesus is God. Because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Your objection and semantics does no justice for the cause for which the Nicene Creed follows the Apostles Creed to defeat heresy, when the filioque confirms the Nicence Creed to the Arian western invaders that Jesus is God incarnate.
Charlemene the Western Emperor allowed the filioque in his empire for different reasons, because he would have nothing to do with the Eastern empire, which the Arians came from.
Your Orthodox argumental semantics falsely claim that the filioque divides the blessed Trinity. Not true. We still profess the Nicene Creed as well as the original Apostles Creed. The filioque emphatically claims that Jesus is God and God cannot be divided.
Any more additions which Orthodox claims to add to the filioque is heretical and never reaches the Roman Catholic position of the filioque. Orthodox has false pretenses and false accusations here.
You asked “which scriptures”? It begins with Genesis all the way through the book of Revelations. Because when ever scripture reveals God speaking, you have God sending his Word and the Holy Spirit proceeding with power from the Father and the Son. Because the Word of God is God and the Word became flesh.
When Orthodox argues against the filioque that the Roman Catholic Church believes Jesus is God, she argues against the Nicene Creed which reveals the Son and the Father are consubstantial and are never divided.
Rome was never attacked by such Eastern heretics and heresies that denied Jesus divinity after the Nicene Creed sufficed the faithful. When your sister heterodox church’s tried to infect the West. The Pope defeated that Eastern heresy by professing emphatically that Jesus is God incarnate, because we believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the Nicene Creed proclaims, but your sister Church’s heresy proclaimed Jesus was not God. The Pope said Jesus is God because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, thus the blessed Trinity is one God and cannot be divided which the filioque confirms, which defeated the Arian heresy from infecting the West.
Simply put, don’t make the filioque other than what we Roman Catholics confirm it to be that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct person but One God.
As Mother Angelica put’s it so simply; “When we recieve Jesus we recieve the whole blessed Trinity”.
Peace be with you
S
Schism_hater
Guest
Now that’s rich.
- Status