Issue of celibacy causing the great schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
And thanks for posting the text.

How many times has that item been twisted into saying that it was claimed that the Greeks dropped the filioque from the Creed?
Click to expand...
That is what it says. “They cut off the procession”…
 
“like Pneumatomachoi or Theomachoi, they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son”

This doesn’t explicitly reference the Nicene Creed, just the rejection of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.
 
dvdjs said:
I wonder what the original Latin/Greek word rendered as “guest” was in the notice. It is obvious in context that there was no claim that all “guests” were treated that way, or was there a suggestion of compulsion. The key issue was their being being made clergy (and even a bishop). I don’t know the historical examples. But given the limits of the claim and the historical reality of the eunuchs, I think it hasty and unfounded to dismiss the charge a priori.
Click to expand...
Does it really matter which word was used? The point was, is, and remains that Humbert was, (as Aramis succinctly stated in an earlier post), wrong.
 
Nine_Two said:
Do you actually read what others post, or do you skip words so you can pretend they said contradictory things?

In case you are reading it and just “forgot”, he accused the East of castrating guests, not of castration alone.
Click to expand...
So think about it. Who was castrated? What is the sense of “guests” ? What are you inferring that goes beyond the text? The fundamental question: were there eunuchs who were elevated to clerical ranks among the Byzantines? If the answer is no, then Humbert was wrong; if yes he was right. But the idea that the suggestion is somehow outrageous on its face is just wishful thinking.
 
Nine_Two said:
That is what it says. “They cut off the procession”…
Click to expand...
And you ask if others read.

The idea of dropping the filioque is different than the idea of refusing it, or refusing the theology behind it. The idea of “dropping” implies that it was part of the original, then later excised. That charge is bogus. It just isn’t in the words - if you bother to read them and not read into them.
 
dvdjs said:
So think about it. Who was castrated? What is the sense of “guests” ? What are you inferring that goes beyond the text? The fundamental question: were there eunuchs who were elevated to clerical ranks among the Byzantines? If the answer is no, then Humbert was wrong; if yes he was right. But the idea that the suggestion is somehow outrageous on its face is just wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
What do eunuchs being elevated to clerical ranks have to do with guests being castrated?

You’re trying to muddy the waters so your hero Humbert doesn’t come off so bad.

The suggestion that the Greeks were castrating guests certainly is outragous, no matter how you interprete “guest” and certainly needs, and should have, additional evidence if it is true.
 
dvdjs said:
So I googled " eunuchs among the Byzantine clergy".

First hit:
well.com/~aquarius/guilland-eunuques.htm

So they did make eunuchs clergy, even as proscribed by Nicea I?
Click to expand...
You might want to read Nicea - and your own source again. Nicea doesn’t proscribe eunuchs in the clergy.

However that has nothing to do with this thread. That isn’t what Humbert was arguing (I assume you’re arguing it as a strawman because it actually can be proven that there were eunuchs in the clergy). Guests most certainly does not mean the same as “clergy”.

Additionally if the Greeks were forcibly turning “guests” into eunuchs, under the decree of Nicea, those “guests” would still be eligable for the clergy.

Try to keep to the topic at hand and provide sources that “guests” were castrated.
 
Nine_Two said:
What do eunuchs being elevated to clerical ranks have to do with guests being castrated?

You’re trying to muddy the waters so your hero Humbert doesn’t come off so bad.

The suggestion that the Greeks were castrating guests certainly is outragous, no matter how you interprete “guest” and certainly needs, and should have, additional evidence if it is true.
Click to expand...
Please stop making up nonsense about what i am thinking and who my heroes are.

You are putting weight on “guests”. But what did that mean? It is not clear. Does it simply mean the "strangers’ the non-Greeks. Are you inferring compulsion? I am not muddying this point. You may think it is clear, but I don’t see it either as clear or as the crucial point.

The key idea is the elevation against canons of eunuchs to the clerical ranks. This is also reinforced in the link I gave.
 
Nine_Two said:
You might want to read Nicea - and your own source again. Nicea doesn’t proscribe eunuchs in the clergy.

However that has nothing to do with this thread. That isn’t what Humbert was arguing (I assume you’re arguing it as a strawman because it actually can be proven that there were eunuchs in the clergy). Guests most certainly does not mean the same as “clergy”.

Additionally if the Greeks were forcibly turning “guests” into eunuchs, under the decree of Nicea, those “guests” would still be eligable for the clergy.

Try to keep to the topic at hand and provide sources that “guests” were castrated.
Click to expand...
Note the comma and the word “even” in my post. I did not and do not claim a blanket prohibition against eunuchs in the clergy. Stop making things up. And read my link more carefully.

Please also read this:
“like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy”

There were specific proscriptions in the canons of Nicea against certain types of eunuchs being in the clerical ranks. There were violations of these canons even at the level of Patriarch. That is stated flat out in the link.
 
Try to keep to the topic at hand and provide sources that “guests” were castrated.
Click to expand...
You might like to restrict the topic to “guests”, whoever they are. But the real topic is to understand what Humbert actually wrote. There is too much twisting and spinning on this matter, rather than a rigorous adherence to what we actually know and what is actually true. Thus for example, what Aramis said about beards is simply wrong. And what you reinforced about dropping the filioque from the Creed, is simply not there. Spun. Repeated over and over. Soon it seems to be true.

On eunuchs, what Humbert wrote involved not only the idea of guests, but also the elevation of clerics to the clergy. I have provided a link that details this.

You may want to tar Humbert with unreliability because of the word “guests”. But the fact is that there were a multitude of eunuchs, among whom many were non-canonically members of the clergy - even a Patriarch. I am not sure what the"guest " part is all about, but given what we do actually know, there doesn’t seem to be much of anything that would be, in a novel way, “outrageous”: we are already well into the realm of wild outrageousness.
 
dvdjs said:
Please stop making up nonsense about what i am thinking and who my heroes are.
Click to expand...
Then stop defending him with such vehemence.
You are putting weight on “guests”. But what did that mean? It is not clear. Does it simply mean the "strangers’ the non-Greeks. Are you inferring compulsion? I am not muddying this point. You may think it is clear, but I don’t see it either as clear or as the crucial point.
Click to expand...
No, you were the one who started questioning what the real word is. Neither “strangers” or “non-Greeks” are synonymous with “guests”. If you have questions about the translation then find the bull in the original language, but trying to broaden the meaning so it might possibly be correct, even if it is obscure is foolish. If you are going to assert the translation was that bad, get a better translation, and then prove it’s better. Otherwise you’re just working on the English like the rest of us and making assumptions so he doesn’t come off so bad.
The key idea is the elevation against canons of eunuchs to the clerical ranks. This is also reinforced in the link I gave.
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t, thanks to the search function of my browser I found the part where it talked about eunuchs, and it made clear that Eunuchs were made clergy in line with Nicea. If you think there is an outright ban on Eunuchs in the clergy you’re going to have to provide a link to the copy of the creed you’re using as a source. Every version of the canons I’ve seen bans only those who willingly castrate themselves from service in the clergy. Those castrated by force, and those castrated as children may serve. At any rate, you still haven’t shown how that has anything to do with Humberts allegation.
 
dvdjs said:
Note the comma and the word “even” in my post. I did not and do not claim a blanket prohibition against eunuchs in the clergy. Stop making things up. And read my link more carefully.

Please also read this:
“like Valesians, they castrate their guests and promote them not only to the clergy but to the episcopacy”

There were specific proscriptions in the canons of Nicea against certain types of eunuchs being in the clerical ranks. There were violations of these canons even at the level of Patriarch. That is stated flat out in the link.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you’re saying that Humbert was accusing them of castrating visitors, who were castrated on a voluntary basis (the only way the Nicean prohibitions are violated) and promoting them to the clergy?

That sounds ridiculous. You’ll need something that actually shows that, not that castration was common.
 
dvdjs said:
You might like to restrict the topic to “guests”, whoever they are. But the real topic is to understand what Humbert actually wrote. There is too much twisting and spinning on this matter, rather than a rigorous adherence to what we actually know and what is actually true. Thus for example, what Aramis said about beards is simply wrong. And what you reinforced about dropping the filioque from the Creed, is simply not there. Spun. Repeated over and over. Soon it seems to be true.

On eunuchs, what Humbert wrote involved not only the idea of guests, but also the elevation of clerics to the clergy. I have provided a link that details this.

You may want to tar Humbert with unreliability because of the word “guests”. But the fact is that there were a multitude of eunuchs, among whom many were non-canonically members of the clergy - even a Patriarch. I am not sure what the"guest " part is all about, but given what we do actually know, there doesn’t seem to be much of anything that would be, in a novel way, “outrageous”: we are already well into the realm of wild outrageousness.
Click to expand...
I sure am seeing spin here.
 
By the way, the relevent part of that essay:
The Byzantine Church did not reject eunuchs from the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Their situation was regulated by Canon I of the Council of Nicaea (325) and by Apostolic Canons 21 and 22. “If someone has been made a eunuch,” says Nicaean Canon I, “either by surgeons as a result of an illness or by barbarians, he shall remain in the clergy. But he who, while healthy, mutilated himself, must be prohibited if he is in the clergy; and from now on, none of them may be promoted to the clergy.” Apostolic Canon 21 authorizes the promotion of him who is a eunuch by birth or who has become a eunuch through the violence of men or as a victim of persecution, provided that he is worthy of it, and Canon 22 absolutely prohibits it to anyone who has mutilated himself. Thus the Byzantine Church included a large number of eunuch clergy, among them patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, and monks.
Click to expand...
The article mentions Leo IX complaining about Eunuchs in the episcopate, but does not provide any evidence that they were eunuchs by their own choice.
 
Nine_Two said:
Then stop defending him with such vehemence.
Click to expand...
I am not defending him, I am defending the truth against mischaracterization.
No, you were the one who started questioning what the real word is. Neither “strangers” or “non-Greeks” are synonymous with “guests”. If you have questions about the translation then find the bull in the original language, but trying to broaden the meaning so it might possibly be correct, even if it is obscure is foolish. If you are going to assert the translation was that bad, get a better translation, and then prove it’s better. Otherwise you’re just working on the English like the rest of us and making assumptions so he doesn’t come off so bad.
Click to expand...
Are there Latin words that can be translated as, alternatively guest, or stranger, or alien? (Hint: yes) If you want make inferences that have some real utility, then you have to think about these things. What we needs to be understood is the truth, so we have to think about about the full range of possible meanings. We cannot work within preconceptions. And the idea that we should just be working with some particular translation is nonsense.
No it wasn’t, thanks to the search function of my browser I found the part where it talked about eunuchs, and it made clear that Eunuchs were made clergy in line with Nicea. If you think there is an outright ban on Eunuchs in the clergy you’re going to have to provide a link to the copy of the creed you’re using as a source. Every version of the canons I’ve seen bans only those who willingly castrate themselves from service in the clergy. Those castrated by force, and those castrated as children may serve.
Click to expand...
Huh?
I just said that there was not an outright ban.
The link clearly noted that some eunuchs were made clergy in violation of the canons of Nicea.
The link I gave talked specifically about Rome’s diasgreement with Constantinople on the elevation of eunuchs to the clergy. Read again.
At any rate, you still haven’t shown how that has anything to do with Humberts allegation.
Click to expand...
Huh? Did you read what he actually alleged?
 
dvdjs said:
Huh?
I just said that there was not an outright ban.
The link clearly noted that some eunuchs were made clergy in violation of the canons of Nicea.
The link I gave talked specifically about Rome’s diasgreement with Constantinople on non-canonical elevation of eunuchs to the clergy. Read again.
Click to expand...
Quote the exact text from the essay that proves it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top