Papal Problems...:(

[Allyson]

If this is correct Rosemary, Thank you for the update.

So that I’m clear on this, as of last summer

• the filioque was recited in the liturgy?
• And still has not been universally removed yet from the liturgy?
  I guess those sources I posted were correct afterall.

Well, according to one seminarian I know, the filioque in practice was already removed in most parishes before the final implementation of the RDL. There were a few “holds outs” so to speak where it was still used, because it always had been.

So as of the begining of last summer, you might have found a few parishes that included it, but now that the implementation has gone into effect, it is no longer in use, or in the pew books.

So officially, and universally in the Ruthenian Rite, the creed with the Filioque is not in use. It has been officially removed.

Note that I used had NOT has.

The RDL of the Ruthenian Church which went into effect Last Summer, does not contain the filioque. Before that, it was to be removed, but this** had **not become universal yet.

“Yet” as modified by “had,” indicates “yet as of that time” - which happens to be* before *the implementation of the RDL Last Summer NOT after including now.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[bobzills]

Well, according to one seminarian I know, the filioque in practice was already removed in most parishes before the final implementation of the RDL. There were a few “holds outs” so to speak where it was still used, because it always had been.

So as of the begining of last summer, you might have found a few parishes that included it, but now that the implementation has gone into effect, it is no longer in use, or in the pew books.

So officially, and universally in the Ruthenian Rite, the creed with the Filioque is not in use. It has been officially removed.

Note that I used had NOT has.

God Bless,
Rosemary

Steve b says that the filioque is absolutely correct. If so, why has it been removed from many of the Catholic creeds?

 

[Allyson]

Steve b says that the filioque is absolutely correct. If so, why has it been removed from many of the Catholic creeds?

I can’t answer for what SteveB thinks. I will leave that to him. I know that he was responding to a pot where it was suggested that the “filioque” was a heretical teaching of the Popes, if I have read links of the conversation correctly.

I know a lot of people who will say that it is okay to not use the filioque as long as you beleive what is taught in the councils about the filioque. So it would seem that it does not matter for the truth of the proposition that it be prayed in all Catholic Parishes in the recitation of the creed during liturgy.

I don’t think I have answered your question. I have only shown how futile it might be to get an answer depending on who you ask. I am Eastern; I don’t pray it in the creed. I don’t think I could answer, because I am not proposing its absoluteness of truth. All human words fail at some point.

God Bless,
Rosemary

 

[steve_b]

Steve b says that the filioque is absolutely correct. If so, why has it been removed from many of the Catholic creeds?

Each side defines “proceeds” differently. The filioque is absolutely correct when proceeds is defined with the Western (Latin) meaning.

 

[Allyson]

Each side defines “proceeds” differently. The filioque is absolutely correct when proceeds is defined with the Western (Latin) meaning.

Who are the “sides” which you reference here?

There are two words in Greek for proceeds, and one in Latin, which happens to translate for both the Greek words and the meanings associated with each. If the Latin meaning is the same as one of the meanings, then the filioque is a not a problem, and if it is like the other - ekporesis - than it is a problem. Florence, unfortunately, says that procedit is ekporesis. If I remember correctly, and so this is a potential problem if I have it correctly recalled. (I can not remember the other greek word right now, but it has been brought up before in other threads.)

So it is not that one side defines preceeds this was and the other a different way. It is that the East has two kinds of proceeding and a word for each, AND Latin has one word for each kind, which makes translation difficult.

Which form of procession in Greek do you think the West is using when it uses procedit in the creed? Or how would you define procession according to the West, and explain how it is not problematic for the East? {keep in mind that I am not suggesting that it is, I just think that your answer oversimplifies the situation and I would like to see you flesh it out if you can.}

God Bless,
Rosemary

This is going off topic, so we can make another thread…

 

[JJR1453]

Acts 15:19-20

"Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood."

You might notice that St James is using the Greek word, “krino*”*, a legal term meaning “I decide”, “I rule”, “I judge”.

Clearly St James was the head of this council.

Excuse me for my dormancy in this particular thread. I try and stop by and post when I can but have been terribly busy lately.

As for your declarations regarding ego krino:

First off it is imperative that in analyzing Acts 15:19 we read the entire verse. Im refering here to ego, or “I”. This appears before krino.

There are a few elucidations, I will give a few. One such analysis is given by a Protestant theologian G. Campbell Morgan:

"It has been pointed out that the pronoun 'I,‘I decide,’ is emphatic in the Greek. An emphatic pronoun depends after all upon the tone and emphasis. The emphatic ‘I’ must be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the New Testamant and the Bible. It is absurd to believe that James at this moment gave his personal opinion as the final word , from which there could be no appeal…The very emphasis on the ‘I’ shows that he was only expressing a personal conviction. (Morgan, The Acts of the Apostles)

Also, Michael Winter notes:

“The actual word used, ‘And so I give my voice’(Ego krino)(v.19), do not actually favor the view that he [James] was summing up, or deciding the matter on his own authority. Elsewhere in Acts [13:46, 16:15, 26:8] the same verb krino is used to denote the expression of an opinion and could better be expressed by the phrase ‘in my opinion’, or ‘as for me’”. (Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes)

And further, Robert Sungenis notes:

“We also find that the church father Irenaeus inserts the idiomatic Greek phrase to kat’ eme(‘as much as in me is’) after ego to show that it is James’ opinion rather than a dogamtic declaration. This phrase *to kat’ eme * is used by Paul in Romans 1:15 to say the same. The fact that James’ contribution must first be accepted by the rest of the council shows that it was not a unilateral decision on James’ part but a worthy recommendation. If it was anything more that a recommendation, there certainly is no precedent set for James in the New Testament to be the definitive determiner of truth on such issues.” (Sungenis, Letter to Authors)

Citations all taken from: Jesus, Peter and the Keys (Butler, Dahlgren, Hess)

God Bless,

JJR

"

 

[JJR1453]

For the Son of thunder (the Apostle John), the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now
St John Chrysostom

The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere
St John Chrysostom

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part
St John Chrysostom

Hello again MIckey,

In keeping with the function of uniformity , I shall quote from the same revered church Father:

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things?(John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather that the others [Galatians 1:18]. And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says,'If thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren,…and the third time He gives him the same injunction, **showing at what a price He sets the presidency over his own sheep. And if any one should say, How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem? This I would answer, that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the world.” **(St. John Chrysostom)

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Does anyone have a rebuttal against this?

I have, or should I say St. Irenaeus has, at least till someone trys to refute my above claims, which in turn follows my refutation…and on and on it goes…

God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

Perhaps we can hold back on the personal attacks and stick to the topic…

James seems to have the final say, yet Peter speaks first. According to Catholic theology, does Peter (or his successors) have to announce the final decision? I was under the impression that they just need to approve it…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Vey good point Alexius:thumbsup:

It is imperative while in dialogue that we let charity be our common denominator.

How rude of me! Having not posted in a week and so now I am compelled, in my free-time, to post 4 consecutive posts!
I look forward to all replies from my brothers, both East and West!

God Bless

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

As he also said

“And if anyone would say 'How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem?”, I would reply that he appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world…" (Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88, Migne PG 59:478,

“God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler of the whole world [Greek], that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future. And what I have said is no guess, listen to Christ Himself saying, ‘Simon, Simon, how often hath Satan desired to sift thee as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy strength fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’.” (Hom quod frequenter conveniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[329])

Forgive me steve, I have unintentionally cited the same quote from St John Chrysostom. Also, great contributions! It should especially be noted that Christ prays for Peter solely, and through the strengthening of Peter, that the other brethren may be strengthened.

God bless,

JJR

 

[Alexius]

Vey good point Alexius:thumbsup:

It is imperative while in dialogue that we let charity be our common denominator.

How rude of me! Having not posted in a week and so now I am compelled, in my free-time, to post 4 consecutive posts!
I look forward to all replies from my brothers, both East and West!

God Bless

JJR

I personally am not offended by your posting style. I think we all have busy schedules…Anyway, I want this to be a thread open to anyone who wishes to add their comments or “arguments” for/against the Papacy…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[holdencaulfield]

I personally am not offended by your posting style. I think we all have busy schedules…Anyway, I want this to be a thread open to anyone who wishes to add their comments or “arguments” for/against the Papacy…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

I don’t know where you are right know with your belief in the Papacy. Would you make a comment and then I will respond. Do you kind of believe it, or not at all.

 

[Mickey]

As he also said

St John Chrysostom
He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…

 

[Mickey]

Hello again MIckey

Greetings JJ. Dueling Church Father quotes becomes wearisome after the first 10,00 threads.

Nobody disputes the primacy of St Peter. It is the odd innovation of supremacy/infallibility that is disputed.

Peace

 

[steve_b]

Forgive me steve, I have unintentionally cited the same quote from St John Chrysostom. Also, great contributions! It should especially be noted that Christ prays for Peter solely, and through the strengthening of Peter, that the other brethren may be strengthened.

God bless,

JJR

:tiphat: Howdy JJR

Everytime I read that verse [Lk 22:32] I can’t help but think, what must the others have thought? If I was one of the others, I’d be thinking, hey what about US? Are we chopped liver?

It’s really the Father who is orchestrating this. Jesus tells us

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

IMO not enough reflection is made on this. The Father wants Peter, He wants him to succeed, but also those who follow him in the office of pope till the end of time. And it is this model that Luke describes that will continue. Everyone will be sifted by Satan, but it is Peter who will strengthen the Church after the sifting, which is a constant till the end as well.

 

[Mickey]

The Father wants Peter, He wants him to succeed, but also those who follow him in the office of pope till the end of time.

The Holy Trinity wants all mankind to be saved through Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The man-made tradition of supremacy and infallibility that has been thrust upon the modern day papacy by the Latin Church would have been foreign to St Peter.

May God help us all.

 

[steve_b]

St John Chrysostom
He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…

One doesn’t seperate one’s confession from the person, they are a package.

Chrysostom also said

“When he is told, ‘Thou canst not follow Me now,’ he says, ‘Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.’ Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: ‘And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,’ …(that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility), and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself.” (Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII,

 

[Mickey]

One doesn’t seperate one’s confession from the person, they are a package.

Who says? Christ is the rock and we are all called to repeat St Peter’s confession of faith.

St Augustine****
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. **But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. **But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

 

[steve_b]

Who says? Christ is the rock and we are all called to repeat St Peter’s confession of faith.

Sure, but that doesn’t make you pope

 

[Mickey]

Chrysostom also said

“When he is told, ‘Thou canst not follow Me now,’ he says, ‘Though all should deny Thee, yet will not I deny.’ Because, then, it appeared likely he would be puffed up even to madness, since he practiced contradicting, He warns him not to rebel. This is what Luke refers to when he says that Christ said: ‘And I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,’ …(that it may not be lost to the end, throughout teaching him humility), and proving that human nature is nothing by itself. For since his great love made him contradictory, He moderates him, that he might not in the future have the same fault, when he should receive the government of the world, but that remembering his fault he might know himself.” (Hom 73[72] in Joann 1, vol VIII,

Don’t you just love St John!

I wonder what you think he is trying to say in the above quote.