M
Mickey
Guest
LOL! There have been countless threads on the filioque. It has been proven repeatedly that it should be removed. There is no need to go down that road again.
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
I too am disappointed in the direction this thread has taken. I thought CAF was something other than an echo chamber for ideologues. It appears I was wrong, at least with reference to this thread.
D
dvdjs
Guest
M
marlo
Guest
You have not quoted any Latin Fathers on any of your thread, that’s why you need to prove that you really knew the Latin Doctrines as you said. Its because i do believe that you have fallen to hating all about the Catholic teaching including not believing the writings of the Latin Fathers.
M
Mickey
Guest
LOL! What on Earth do you mean by Latin Fathers.
Since I believe that Holy Orthodoxy is the fulness of truth containing the fulness of catholic teaching, you would be quite mistaken. Furthermore, I have many Latin and Eastern friends and family who are in communion with the Pope of Rome. I love them dearly. I do not disagree with all of the Latin teachings and I most certainly do not hate the teachings of which I am not in agreement with. Finally, I am very grateful that the Latin/Eastern Catholic Church was a path for my journey to Holy Orthodoxy.
You are very fond of passing judgement on me as part of your debating tactics. This is very sad and I wish you would stop. You do not know me…and I am fairly certain that you are not a reader of hearts…so please attempt to refrain for your ad hominem attacks. Thank you.
D
DL82
Guest
I think this comes down to a question about the philosophy of language. The Catholic Church, after a period of nominalism in the medieval period which tended to equate spiritual truths with the formularies in which they were expressed, has since come to an understanding of the development of doctrine such that “our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity” (CCC 43), so that the ultimate Truth of Christian dogmas are not the same as the language in which they are expressed in Latin theology.
I am not sure in what way the Orthodox Church understands the language of its’ doctrines, dogmas and ecumenical councils. If it shares this view, as the emphasis on mystery and the apophatic approach in Eastern theology seems to suggest, then there is space for dialogue and reconciliation, recognising that we express the same one Truth in different language. If, on the other hand, the Orthodox Church takes the Platonist view that each word really does refer to an extant ideal, or a view that God literally inspired the very words of the canons of their councils, and not merely the sense of those words (as some fundamentalist Protestants understand the Bible, or as Muslims understand the Qur’an), then there is, it seems, no room for dialogue on their part, except in how to interpret these divine words. I would be surprised if the Orthodox Church were so dogmatic on this question of language, and am hopeful that real dialogue is possible, and, God willing, that we will see real reconciliation in our lifetimes.
D
dvdjs
Guest
LOL! What on Earth do you mean by Latin Fathers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers.Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c 160 - c 225), who was converted to Christianity before 197, was a prolific writer of apologetic, theological, controversial and ascetic works.[14] He was the son of a Roman centurion. Tertullian denounced Christian doctrines he considered heretical, but later in life adopted views that themselves came to be regarded as heretical. … He is said to have introduced the Latin term “trinitas” with regard to the Divine (Trinity) to the Christian vocabulary … and also the terms “vetus testamentum” (Old Testament) and “novum testamentum” (New Testament). In his Apologeticus, he was the first Latin author who qualified Christianity as the “vera religio”…
Cyprian of Carthage (Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus) (died September 14, 258) was bishop of Carthage and an important early Christian writer.
Ambrose of Milan (c. 338 – 4 April 397), was a bishop of Milan who became one of the most influential ecclesiastical figures of the 4th century. He is counted as one of the four original doctors of the Church.
Jerome of Stridonium (c 347 – September 30, 420) is best known as the translator of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. He also was a Christian apologist.
Augustine of Hippo (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430), Bishop of Hippo, was a philosopher and theologian.
Saint Gregory I the Great (c. 540 – March 12, 604) was pope from September 3, 590 until his death. He is also known as Gregorius Dialogus (Gregory the Dialogist) in Eastern Orthodoxy because of the Dialogues he wrote.
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368[1]) was Bishop of Poitiers and is a Doctor of the Church. He was sometimes referred to as the “Hammer of the Arians”
Saint Isidore of Seville (Spanish: San Isidro or San Isidoro de Sevilla, Latin: Isidorus Hispalensis) (c. 560 – 4 April 636) was Archbishop of Seville for more than three decades and is considered, as the historian Montalembert put it in an oft-quoted phrase, “le dernier savant du monde ancien”
D
dvdjs
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
LOL! I am sorry you had to take the time to do your cutting and pasting.
They are called Early Church Fathers–all part of the same Church.
And those ECF’s from the “West” were not filioquists.
Good day. :tiphat:
D
dcointin
Guest
Are you seriously denying that there are Latin church fathers?LOL! What on Earth do you mean by Latin Fathers.
Since I believe that Holy Orthodoxy is the fulness of truth containing the fulness of catholic teaching, you would be quite mistaken. Furthermore, I have many Latin and Eastern friends and family who are in communion with the Pope of Rome. I love them dearly. I do not disagree with all of the Latin teachings and I most certainly do not hate the teachings of which I am not in agreement with. Finally, I am very grateful that the Latin/Eastern Catholic Church was a path for my journey to Holy Orthodoxy.
You are very fond of passing judgement on me as part of your debating tactics. This is very sad and I wish you would stop. You do not know me…and I am fairly certain that you are not a reader of hearts…so please attempt to refrain for your ad hominem attacks. Thank you.
D
dvdjs
Guest
No problem. But now with the list you might want to take up Marlo’s challenge. Cutting and pasting from other threads would be OK. I would like to see your results.
M
Mickey
Guest
Oh please. Chill out. They are all Church Fathers–East and West. I have been challenged to show that the “Latin” Fathers did not support the filioque. The filioque has been dabated to death here. But if you want participate in such a thread, perhaps** you** can start it?
I will not be contributing.
M
Mickey
Guest
Read post above. Have fun!
D
dvdjs
Guest
The challenge was an interesting one.Read post above. Have fun!
D
dcointin
Guest
I didn’t catch the context, I thought you were just laughing at the very idea of Latin fathers. I think I’m done with starting Filioque threads lol!Oh please. Chill out. They are all Church Fathers–East and West. I have been challenged to show that the “Latin” Fathers did not support the filioque. The filioque has been dabated to death here. But if you want participate in such a thread, perhaps** you** can start it?
I will not be contributing.
M
Mickey
Guest
Me too.
M
Mickey
Guest
If you think so, then **you **start the thread.
There are knowledgeable members of the Holy Orthodox Church on this forum who may be willing to invest the time to clarifiy some of the quotes which will be posted attempting to show that the “Western” Church Fathers were always filioquists.
Been there. Done that. Yawn.
D
dvdjs
Guest
M
Mickey
Guest
Sorry. That discussion could have been years ago. And it was an Orthodox forum. Don’t have the time to track it down—not for this subject anyway.
Man, you guys sure are filioque junkies, eh?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Mickey, how well do you understand Holy Orthodoxy? When you ask questions like “What do you mean by Latin Fathers”, as if the Latin Fathers used the same theological language and terminology and the same theological experience as the Greek Fathers, and when you downplay the importance of the filioque, you frankly sound like a Roman Catholic, repeating the same assumptions and attitudes of basic-level Roman Catholic apologetics.Sorry. That discussion could have been years ago. And it was an Orthodox forum. Don’t have the time to track it down—not for this subject anyway.
Man, you guys sure are filioque junkies, eh?
- Status