B
benjohnson
Guest
Ahem…
Die evangelische Kirche hat gesprochen, die decicion ist endgültig.
(forgive me, I’m really getting rusty)
- Status
Die evangelische Kirche hat gesprochen, die decicion ist endgültig.
(forgive me, I’m really getting rusty)
P
Peter_J
Guest
Btw, sorry for the typo: I meant to only put two exclamation points after “spoken”.
C
chero23
Guest
Amen
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
I have heard this claim before that the patristic quotes that support papal supremacy were forged during the 9th century. Can any Roman Catholic offer a defense against this accusation? Seems pretty fatal to me.
V
Vaseljen
Guest
Well i am not historian nor do i have proofs, i did not search in to this matter, i only informed myself about what the Orthodox party claims:
The Orthodox claim that “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” were written in 845 and that they hold 115 forged documents of the early popes.
I am not sure of this, but i head that even some in the Catholic Church admit that those were forgeries to help Rome survive against secular powers.
Orthodox also claim that one latter of saint Ambrose was also forged in which he said that if the one does not agree with the holy See, he is a heretic.
Orthodox claim that “Donation of Constantine” was forged in 9th century, in which emperor Constantine gave western lands to the pope of Rome and that Rome used this document to claim authority in secular matters in the west.
Orthodox also claim that Roman-Catholic canon law “Decretum” which was written in 12th century, contains 313 early papal forged passages and that only 11 are genuine.
In 13th century Thomas Aquinas came and biased his theology on these documents that Orthodox claim to be forgeries, but that Thomas did not know that.
Orthodox also claim that Rome forged the works of saints Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Epiphanios and Maximus the Confessor, and also the documents of Ecumenical Synods.
In 9th century saint Photius of Constantinople claimed that Latins use forgeries and that Greeks could not find anything even similar to the Latin claims in the Imperial Archives of Constantinople. Saint Mark of Ephesus 600 years later in 15th century claimed the same thing.
G
gus
Guest
There is one of the many reasons I’m against unification with the multiple church’s who loosely call themselves Orthodox.
St Photius!
Great source for unbiased views.
R
Rohzek
Guest
As an Orthodox, I am personally against making the the council of 879 ecumenical, solely because whether or not the procession of Holy Spirit THROUGH the Son is either temporal or eternal is a factor that is hardly known. Photius insisted that it was temporal. I am hardly convinced. That being said, it is not the same as proceeding eternally from the Father and the Son, as Florence was apt to insist upon.
V
Vaseljen
Guest
St Photius is not the only source, but he was there and argued, he is part of the history. To the Roman-Catholics he is the main bad guy because he was the first who started criticizing things in the west. But it was all about jurisdiction over Bulgaria.
Which proves that the early Popes had to struggle for their jurisdiction with the other Patriarchs unlike Pope Francis today.
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
The RCC admits that the decretals of pseudo-isodore and the donation of constantine are forgeries. I am not sure what their stance on the “forged” quotes of the Fathers is. I know for certain that St. Maximos the Confessor never supported papal supremacy. I have never seen him used as a source to support it. This is an issue that has been brought up multiple times on this site but no Roman Catholic has cared to respond to it.St Photius is not the only source, but he was there and argued, he is part of the history. To the Roman-Catholics he is the main bad guy because he was the first who started criticizing things in the west. But it was all about jurisdiction over Bulgaria.
Which proves that the early Popes had to struggle for their jurisdiction with the other Patriarchs unlike Pope Francis today.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
The Eastern Catholic churches I have attended mainly Melkite, don’t use the Filioque so absolutelyWhich is totally fine. The Eastern Catholic Churches, at least those that re-established communion after the Great Schism of 1054, also don’t have the Filioque clause in their Creeds.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
Lol
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Is this the same Photius who became the Patriarch of Constantinople after a revolution was fought that deposed the official Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople?
I wonder if the 2016 council will recall that both Patriarch’s of Constantinople, **Ignatius and Photius himself appealed to the Bishop of Rome; Pope Nicholas. **
After the Bishop of Rome denied Photius and supported Ignatius, he was restored to his politically threatened office of Patriarch of Constantinople.
Immediately following Ignatius re-installment to Patriarch of Constantinople, the defeated Photius declared the ENTIRE western Catholic Church to be heretical due to the filioque.
History disagree’s with your view. The Photius schism is 867, the Bulgarian Archbishop Leo of Orchid does not come on the scene until the eleventh century, who accussed the West of ERROR, because she celebrated and followed Jesus and Paul clerical celibacy, and celebrated communion with unleavened bread.
Jurisdiction over Bulgaria does not even show up on the radar as far as the schism factors are concerned. You should be concerned about the Patriarch of Constantinople who vied and fought to be recognized as having the same and equal authority as the Bishop of Rome, when Constantinople had already usurped power from other original apostolic sees.
The only thing the Popes struggled with, was with heretical Eastern Emperors trying to place it’s authority over the Catholic faith. The Emperor’s would eventually use Photius as there puppet, who succeeded Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople, to force imperial rule over Church practices and faith, which the Popes struggled with and suffered from.Which proves that the early Popes had to struggle for their jurisdiction with the other Patriarchs unlike Pope Francis today.
I think the Orthodox Church’s, especially the ones who are in war kill zones today, deserve more attention at any church council, rather than to judge a current schism from questionable circumstances and individuals on both sides of the isle.
But that’s just an opinion.
P
prodromos
Guest
What a bunch of hooey
V
Vaseljen
Guest
Didn’t saint pope Leo III forbid you guys to have Filioque in the Creed and didn’t you start celebrating Filioque Creed in 1014 when German emperor forced you to? That is after saint Photius’s era.
During Photian era, barbaric Franks started criticizing the Greeks for heresy because they did not have Filioque in their Creed. They thought that Filioque was in the Creed since ever, they were protectors of Rome, and Rome remained silent. Of course that the East accused west then of heresy, because those who were uneducated were preaching that the Holy Spirit proceed essentially from the Father and the Son.
You criticize saint Photius like he is the worst bishop ever. Saint Photius was responsible for Slavic conversion to Christianity. He sent the holy brothers Cyril and Methodius in to mission, while Rome tried to undermine them because they were progressive and were preaching in the Native language of the Slavs. But again, all politics, Rome did not want Slavs to be Eastern rite.
Patriarch Ignatious was willing to let Rome have jurisdiction over the Slavs and Bulgaria which borders Constantinople. Patriarch Photius did not want to let that happen.
Emperors did meddle in to the Constantinople’s Church affairs, but they did not teach heresy since iconoclasm, the bishop of Constantinople did not have that honor of becoming earthly emperor that reigns almost all of Europe and meddles in to every country’s affair, that honor pope gained, which the Holy Tradition forbids if i am not wrong.
And pope was able to gain all that because of documents that the Greeks claim to be forged. If it is true what they say, then those documents were forged with the good reason.
R
Rohzek
Guest
Ah yes, polemics from the masses who haven’t read a history book written in the past 80 years…how lovely. Y’all do know that Francis Dvornik’s Photian Schism went a long way in paving a resolution for this issue right?
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
Ah, the Orthodox-Catholic threads we’ve all come to know and love. You have it wrong! No, you have it wrong!
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
These never get anywhere other than deeper and deeper into acrimony.
At the risk of expanding it, I’ll say this. Most Orthodox are of the Moscow Patriarchate, by far. The Moscow Patriarchate is a national church, and it’s very territorial. Relations between the West and Russia nowadays are not good. There is no more likelihood that the Moscow Patriarchate will reunite with the Catholic Church than there is of Russia joining NATO.
The split was political when it happened, and it’s political now. All the rest is gingerbread and spangles added to the structure.
W
Wandile
Guest
It must be mentioned though that Dvornik made a few errors and was criticised heavily for being too favourable and accepting of the eastern point of view especially at times when the evidence was wanting
J
Jon_Mallory
Guest
I pray you remain unscathed from the heat you’ll likely get from that opinion
. I suspect folk will say that this opinion glosses over the theological differences between east and west, which predate NATO by a long shot.- Status