Is the Eastern Orthodox Church correct

Status
Not open for further replies.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Technically they wouldn’t unless they knew they were breaking the rule. No one warned them afterwards for centuries. But that’s just technicality.
Click to expand...
As they say, ignorance is bliss and I relent there is the possibility they were ignorant of Canon VII of Ephesus.
My previous assumption is that they were not ignorant, In which case my argument holds.
Nevertheless, It seems to me that it would’ve been prudent of the council of Florence to warn those using the filioque that they face the pain of anathema as per Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
This still leaves Armenians who were never rebuked for using different Creed.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing for the Armenians or anyone else for that matter or their use of any creed, the only argument I am making is that if an ecumenical council ratified by the papacy was in agreement that it was wrong to change the nicaea creed by pain of anathema, it shouldn’t have been changed.
 
Last edited:
CathBoy1 said:
40.png
steve-b:
Do you understand what is being said here?
Click to expand...
Yes I understand what is being said here,

[snip for space]

And if looked at in terms of its fruit - eg The schisming of the Church - All bets are favoring the Pope who endorsed the Conciliar ruling… Adding that one word was a disaster…
Click to expand...
The Church was already in schism. The Filioque didn’t cause it. Schism was over authority.

AND

for some of the back story

the Filioque was sung At the Ecumenical council of Lyons by the Greeks where a temporary reunion took place

AND

The Catholic doctrine was accepted by the Greek deputies who were present at the second Council of Lyons, in 1274, and at the Council of Florence, in 1439, when the Creed was sung both in Greek and Latin, with the addition of the word Filioque On each occasion it was hoped that the Patriarch of Constantinople and his subjects had abandoned the state of heresy and schism in which they had been living since the time of Photius, who about 870 found in the Filioque an excuse for throwing off all dependence on Rome. But however sincere the individual Greek bishops may have been, they failed to carry their people with them, and the breach between East and West continues to this day.

Who attended?

The Fourteenth Ecumenical Council was held at Lyons (1274) by Pope Gregory X, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople, 15 cardinals, 500 bishops, and more than 1000 other dignitaries. It effected a temporary reunion of the Greek Church with Rome.

Unfortunately, it was only temporary
 
@CathBoy1

As I continue reading about the Councils of Toledo a few interesting ideas come up.

Firstly, the 11th Council of Toledo held in 675 A.D. issued an expanded Creed of its own that clarifies the theology of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit (read it here: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/toledo.txt).

Secondly, the 14th Council of Toledo held in 684 A.D. “approved the sixth ecumenical council and sent notice to the pope.” Which would point to the possibility of local councils as having the authority to ratify or deny the validity of an Ecumenical Council.(source:Fourteenth Council of Toledo - Wikipedia).
 
George720 said:
40.png
steve-b:
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 Council of Florence could add “ filioque ” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession.

Do you understand what is being said here?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that an Ecumenical Council of the Churches added the Filioque to the Creed???
Click to expand...
Yes
40.png
George720:
Three question marks because that did not happen…

The Orthodox do not recognize the Council of Florence…
Click to expand...
Actually there was a temporary agreement HERE with the schismatics

AND

While the Greeks were in schism, they were invited to the council.

Then

came a temporary reunion,

However

that was reduced back to schism,

THAT

doesn’t mean Lyons → Florence weren’t ecumenical. The entire Catholic Church was represented at both councils. Because, schismatics while invited, aren’t considered representing the Catholic Church.
40.png
George720:
In our Ekklesiology, a Council has to be ratified by its acceptance in practice by the whole Church… And that did not happen…

geo
Click to expand...
George,

The Catholic Church is represented in 21 ecumenical councils.

May I just add,

The Orthodox can’t even assemble as a whole, among themselves. In 2016, a Pan Orthodox meeting was attempted. Such a council had never happened within E Orthodoxy in their history, with all it’s autocephalous parts.

AND

In 2016

The

Russians, Antiochian , Bulgarian, and Georgian Churches, four Autocephalous Churches representing more than 70% of the Orthodox faithful in the world, boycotted the council that was supposed to be a Pan Orthodox synod

Point being,

They aren’t the Catholic Church, and have no impact on Catholic councils being ecumenical. Catholics in all Catholic rites, meeting together with the pope, being over the council, making it universal, is what makes a council ecumenical
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
40.png
CathBoy1:
I am interested in your opinion on how Rome came to the conclusion that, since Peter died as the bishop of Rome, we are to hand every succeeding Roman bishop the authority and supremacy of the entire church?
Click to expand...
I’m the wrong person to ask; I don’t have much on that.

There was certainly a level of deference to the bishops of Rome, and an acceptance of leadership, even in the first century.

“supremacy” and exercise of direct jurisdiction seems to be a second millennium development, although there also seem to be some assertions in a similar vein from some Church fathers (but other than vetoing a council or two, I couldn’t name an attempt to exercise direct jurisdiction )
Click to expand...
Pope Clement of Rome Italy, in the 1st century, here (St John the apostle is still alive ) settles sedition between the bishops of Corinth… Greece
40.png
dochawk:
After the collapse of the western empire, the church was pretty much the only institution left, and picked up a central secular role. Meanwhile, the east never had this problem.
Click to expand...
🤔 May I suggest, brushing up on that history
 
Last edited:
Definitions are important. Notice I never said, “good hope”, nor was I referring to the supernatural virtue of Hope or Faith or Charity, which I’d say is a bit of a different topic.

Especially considering I clarified that I am not saying we should expect such. All I am saying is that it isn’t impossible, and can hope (as in the typical modern usage) for such infants, pray for them, etc.

But it does demonstrate that God can act very amazingly to cleanse someone of sin. After all, He decided to suffer and die for us!

I think you have this strange either/or thing going on. I believe in limbo. But that doesn’t mean that God never can act in a spectacular way (say, acknowledging a vicarious baptism of desire when baptism is impossible) so as to cleanse an infant from sin.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
🤔 May I suggest, brushing up on that history
Click to expand...
The empire lasted in the east until conquered by another, while the west was left with successions of warlords for many centuries, with feudal chains of various size.
 
dochawk said:
40.png
steve-b:
🤔 May I suggest, brushing up on that history
Click to expand...
The empire lasted in the east until conquered by another, while the west was left with successions of warlords for many centuries, with feudal chains of various size.
Click to expand...
Re: the East
it spent most of it’s existence in one heresy after another The Great Heresies | Catholic Answers

THEN

Because the East was sooo divided among themselves, then along came Islam which was unified, and it annihilated the East.
 
Last edited:
CathBoy1 said:
Brother, your arguing that I’m arguing against the papacy, I’m not.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Mia culpa… I responded to your first post not even looking at your second (or reference to it in your first post)… I believe it’s an undiagnosed mental issue.
CathBoy1 said:
Does the Catholic teaching on Original Sin condemn unborn/unbaptized babies?
Click to expand...
So, we already established I have mental issues but I don’t believe the teaching condemns. It helps us understand the importance of our role in the economy of salvation.
 
When Jesus made Peter the rock of the church I don’t think his intent was for the pope to just excommunicate people so he could maintain political power. Just saying ¯_(ツ)_/¯
 
Jragzz123 said:
When Jesus made Peter the rock of the church I don’t think his intent was for the pope to just excommunicate people so he could maintain political power. Just saying ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
Doesn’t change the fact that Jesus chose Peter.

I’m one of those who believe God is the author of history. That doesn’t mean God directed the holocaust.

But sometimes we get the leaders we deserve. Obama, Trump (for us Americans), JPII, Cyrus, etc…

When we get a “good” leader we should approach God with praise & Thanksgiving. When we get a bad leader we should approach God with praise & Thanksgiving.

If you know what I mean.
 
The Eastern Orthodox Church is correct in so much as it corresponds to the Catholic Church.
 
Jragzz123 said:
the pope to just excommunicate people so he could maintain political power
Click to expand...
Our Lord gave St. Peter the ability to bind and loose and the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. The successors of St. Peter have the keys and are the rock inherited from St. Peter. But you are right, Christ did not intend for a pope to merely excommunicate people for power, that is not the purpose of excommunication. But, there are bad people in the world. And some sinful people can become pope. The pope is not impeccable, merely infallible in ex cathedra teaching. Now if some popes have excommunicated for political power, which would be hard to find, that would be sinful. But who are we to assert that that is what they did?
I think Matthew 24:45-51 has a good place here:
“Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so. Amen, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is long delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards, the servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. Here our Lord is saying that there can be an evil servant who abuses the Masters household. Ample passage i think, especially when read in conjunction with Matthew 16:18 and Isaiah 22:22
And one can even apply Matthew 24 to the bishops. As we know, Bishops can bind and loose as well according to Matthew 18. Do you think it wrong for bishops to do so?
 
Last edited:
Justin_Mary said:
Doesn’t change the fact that Jesus chose Peter
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that that’s an irrelevant fact. All I’m saying is there might be confusion on what that role means. Most orthodox accept that the pope is the highest authority. They disagree on how much power he has over the other patriarchs.
 
I guess the question to that would be what role do Bishops have? Then the question comes to why did Jesus single out St. Peter? And how does that correspond to Apostolic Succession? Is the rock on which the Church is built all of the Bishops? Or is it solely St. Peter? If it is St Peter, then again, how does the correspond to St Peter’s successor’s?
 
Like oppressing minorities in Europe? Or covering up sex abuse for over half a century? Or bowing before pagan idols such as pachamama?

Highest among equals. Not supreme ruler who can do whatever he wants and force the church to obey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top