Trinitarian Theologies of East and West -- reconciled at long last

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

I know you may have been “simplifying” on purpose, but still, other readers might get confused.

Well, it is quite simple.

Modern Catholic doctrine is that everybody who is validly baptized is ipso facto a member of the Catholic Church.

It does not matter if it is performed by a Roman Catholic deacon, an Orthodox priest, an Anglican catechist, a Methodist nurse, a Hutu chief.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

It would be a great help for the non-Catholics here if you would define what “productive power” means. It is an important term in the Eugenian and Florentine definition but I haven’t a clue what it means.

JMJ + OBT​

An attempt to define productive power as used by the Latins in their theological formulas during the Council of Florence:

First note that the CE article links the term principia with “the productive power of the Father and the Son” and on to “the Holy Ghost’s] [procession] from the Son [and the Father]” as follows:

the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two “principia” in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son.

So, let’s first pull some select statements from the “Clarification” . . .

The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. [3] (Tertullian, Adv. Praxean, VII, 6)

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of ‘procession’ (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: “The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it” (St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A). [4]

St Maximus the Confessor said: “By nature (phusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ousian) takes substantially (ousiodos) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di Uiou gennethentos)” (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C).

St Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches – Cappadocian and Alexandrian – to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole Principle without Principle (in Greek, aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit.

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council . . . For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance… It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).

St Epiphanius of Saramis (Ancoratus, VIII, PG 43, 29 C) and Didymus the Blind (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, CLIII, PG 34, 1064 A) link the Father and the Son by the same preposition ek in the communication to the Holy Spirit of the consubstantial divinity.

“The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him” (St. Gregory Palamas, Capita physica XXXVI, PG 150, 1144, D-1145 A).

So, as an amateur, I propose that “productive power” is an expression that denotes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son – or we can also say “the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit” (or any of the other derivatives or equivalents indicated above) – is not a static, abstract concept, but rather a living and eternal reality within the Divine Nature. It is “productive” inasmuch as it is a “communication” and not just a humanly imposed demarcation or “zoology” on the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity. This reality is a “power” which is possessed by the Father and the Son as it is a constitutive element of what we mean when we say “consubstantial divinity,” for we ascribe to the Divine Persons the will to communicate rather than believing that such communication is inevitable in an “involuntary” manner.

How was that?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[mark_a]

Duh, can someone explain whosebob’s post to me?

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Woot! I finally achieved “Senior Member” status.

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

I know it does.

It is the Clarification which muddies it.

It muddies nothing. You just ignore half the councils declaration. I have been over this with you and you refuse to listen to facts. The Catholic teaching now is the same as that of Florence.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whosebob:

So, as an amateur, I propose that “productive power” is an expression that denotes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son – or we can also say “the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit” (or any of the other derivatives or equivalents indicated above) – is not a static, abstract concept, but rather a living and eternal reality within the Divine Nature. It is “productive” inasmuch as it is a “communication” and not just a demarcation or a humanly imposed “zoology” on the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity. This reality is a “power” which is possessed by the Father and the Son as it is a constitutive element of what we mean when we say “consubstantial divinity,” for we ascribe to the Divine Persons the will to communicate rather than believing that such communication is inevitable in an “involuntary” manner.

How was that?

Nice try But still needs working on. It has a major internal hindrance.

If the “productive power” is as you say “a living and eternal reality within the Divine Nature” then it must also belong to the Holy Spirit - who then becomes His own cause!

This has always been the flaw with Roman trinitarian theology - it posits the union of the Three Persons in the “substance” of the Godhead (you have used the term “Divine Nature”). The thrust in the Clarification to move away from this doctrine and to emphasis the “monarchy” of the Father is a move in the right direction, back to pre-schism orthodoxy. But there is still a clinging to the filioque and it may need centuries to throw this off.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

It muddies nothing. You just ignore half the councils declaration. I have been over this with you and you refuse to listen to facts. The Catholic teaching now is the same as that of Florence.

Speaking as a member of your Church by virtue of my Baptism ( ) I can see with my own eyes that the teaching in the Clarification is not the same as Florence. We can put this down to the present Pope’s earnest desire to achieve union, but a future Pope who is not so keen on union may decide to overlook the subtle changes introduced by the Clarification for the sake of ecumenism and return to the Florentine dogma.

 

[whosebob]

Fr Ambrose:

. . . If the “productive power” is as you say “a living and eternal reality within the Divine Nature” then it must also belong to the Holy Spirit - who then becomes His own cause!

Okay, I concede the point, thanks.

But wherein does the “monarchy of the Father” lie? Let me speak loosely here: it must be an “attribute” of the Father, and is not so of the Son nor the Holy Spirit.

So then why can’t it be said that the “productive power” is an “attribute” of the Father and Son, and not the Holy Spirit?

Whereas we see that the Father’s “monarchy” allows us to understand the Father as the sole principle without principle in the Holy Trinity, the “productive power” of the Father and Son help us to understand one and the other’s relationship to the Holy Spirit and to each other.

Or in other words, just as monarchy of the Father is the key to understanding origin and generation in the Holy Trinity, the awesome – and too often neglected by the Orthodox – productive power of the Father and Son is the key to understanding the communion between the Divine Persons.

This has always been the flaw with Roman trinitarian theology - it posits the union of the Three Persons in the “substance” of the Godhead (you have used the term “Divine Nature”) . . . But there is still a clinging to the filioque and it may need centuries to throw this off.

No, not a “flaw” or “clinging,” but a Holy Spirit inspired development in Western Trinitarian Theology that helps the universal Church to understand better the “communion of persons” that is the Holy Trinity. Once East and West are re-united, this Western “jewel” of theology will complement in an official an integral way the beliefs and teachings of the East.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

Did you notice that in Dominus Iesus, the Creed without the filioque is stated to be “[the expression of] the fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith.” This statement is made in the second paragraph of the document (contained in the first numbered section):

The Church’s universal mission is born from the command of Jesus Christ and is fulfilled in the course of the centuries in the proclamation of the mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Son, as saving event for all humanity. The fundamental contents of the profession of the Christian faith are expressed thus: “I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come” (First Council of Constantinople, Symbolum Constantinopolitanum: DS 150).

I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t a “typo” .

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[MaggieOH]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear Maggie,

This is demonstrably not so.

1. One of the reasons given in the 1054 AD Papal Bull of Excommunication delivered by Cardinal Humbert is that the East has **omitted ** the filioque from the Creed. Apart from the fact that this demonstrates the West’s abysmal ignorance as to the history of the filioque, it certainly demonstrates that the West wanted to impose the filioque on the East and was willing to excommunicate the East for refusing to use it. The impetus for separation was coming from the Western Church.
2. The Emperor Charlemagne’s ambition to get rid of the Eastern Roman Empire, and for this the filioque was a good pretext.
   From Spain, the Filioque spread to the Germanic tribe of the Franks (in present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Symbol.

Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Second Ecumenical Synod’s Symbol of Faith. He ordered the Symbol — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter’s in Rome.

The Franks ignored the pope and continued to use the Filioque.

Many historians think Charlemagne used the Filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor in opposition to the Roman Empire (located in New Rome, also known as Constantinople).

The dispute between East and West grew and became the focus of the Synod of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This synod (recognised as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the Symbol of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod’s teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.
geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set” -Proverbs 22.28

Fr. Ambrose,

you did not address my question regarding the politics surrounding Photius becoming the Patriarch of Constantinople and his attempts to find a reason to separate from Rome.

What you have addressed is a serious of other peripheral issues, that do need to be addressed, but not until we establish the role of Photius in this whole issue. He was the first. There were two councils and Photius was responsible for that second council that annulled the decisions of the previous one. This also has to be addressed. Plus, before we get into the issues surrounding the split of 1054 we need to address the soundness of the reason brought up by Photius, the man who was prepared to do the bidding of the emperor of Constantinople at that time.

For too long I have been hearing about the wicked west but I never see the members of the Eastern churches really having a good look at the whole of the controversy from the time of Photius up until the time of this clarification. If the West has been wrong on some issues, then the East has also been equally wrong.

I am finding that as I deal with people who have joined the Orthodox Church that there are a number of the old errors (heresies if you prefer) that have surfaced and seem to be doing the rounds in the Orthodox Church.

I have been to one Orthodox ceremony. It was a Baptism. Unfortunately the woman did not give us correct advice about head attire. If I had known about this I would have made sure that I had followed it. However, despite the length of the ceremony I did appreciate participating. Yet I was concerned by what I learned about the keeping of laws that belong to the Law of Moses and yet we do not have to keep these ritual laws any more. It did not make sense to me that an Orthodox Church would stray into such heresy.

My explanation here is one of the reasons that I would like to see focus on the role of Photius in the debacle that has ensued, not just since 1054 but from about 879.

Maggie

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

MaggieOH:

you did not address my question regarding the politics surrounding Photius becoming the Patriarch of Constantinople and his attempts to find a reason to separate from Rome.

I do not realise that these are serious questions. The tradition of the Church comes to us from the Apostles and one Patriarch is not very important in the scheme of things. Also, I do not believe that it was Photius’ desire to find a reason to separate from the Church of Rome. The filioque question had been simmering and sometimes coming to the boil for some centuries before Photius. And when push came to shove it was Rome which created the Schism by the Anathema which accused the East of ommitting the filioque - surely one of the most inane and unhistorical reasons for creating a schism in the Catholic Church.

We must remember that whether or not Cardinal Humbert overstepped his authority by excommunicating Patriarch Michael Cerularius for 1) ommitting the filioque and 2) having married clergy - nevertheless Humbert’s action was not cancelled by the following Pope, Victor, who found it convenient to allow it to stand and to allow the Schism initiated by Cardinal Humbert to fester and consolidate.

What you have addressed is a serious of other peripheral issues, that do need to be addressed, but not until we establish the role of Photius in this whole issue.

I was hoping, along with Aris, that we were going to hold to the suggested programme and look at the scriptural arguments for the filioque. You undertook to provide them.

I have been to one Orthodox ceremony. It was a Baptism. Unfortunately the woman did not give us correct advice about head attire. If I had known about this I would have made sure that I had followed it. However, despite the length of the ceremony I did appreciate participating. Yet I was concerned by what I learned about the keeping of laws that belong to the Law of Moses and yet we do not have to keep these ritual laws any more. It did not make sense to me that an Orthodox Church would stray into such heresy.

Do you consider the keeping of some of the Mosaic Law as heresy? Most of the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law are still in force today in the Church.

The holy Apostle Paul requires women to cover their heads “out of respect for the angels” and for men to uncover their heads for the same reason. Surely you are not placing Saint Paul in the camp of heresy?! His teaching on this point is written in 1 Corinthians 11. Has the New Testament teaching been put aside? You go so far as to call it heresy!!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, it is quite simple.

Modern Catholic doctrine is that everybody who is validly baptized is ipso facto a member of the Catholic Church.

It does not matter if it is performed by a Roman Catholic deacon, an Orthodox priest, an Anglican catechist, a Methodist nurse, a Hutu chief.

This is because the true Minister of all the Sacraments is Jesus Christ our High Priest.​

It is because He is the Minister, that the Sacraments are one - so that there is one Sacrifice (not millions); one Baptism (not millions), and so on. So an atheist can baptise validly.

IMO, the ecclesiological and sacramental disagreements between Orthodox and Catholic, or between the past and present of the Catholic Church, are not unlike those between Cyprian and Stephen. ##

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

If you return to Message #23 and read it slooooowly and caaaaarefully, you will see that I give the whole context.

"

If you read the quote that gives the answer slooooooowly and caaaaaaarefuly, you won’t need to argue the issue any longer.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

If you read the quote that gives the answer slooooooowly and caaaaaaarefuly, you won’t need to argue the issue any longer.

To the best of my knowledge, every Orthodox Church continues to term the filioque a heresy. I am sure that they have read the Clarification and given it serious consideration - but still they call it a heresy. I bow to the wisdom of my theological betters

---

God is the one loveable who is always rejoicing without end in infinite happiness. ~St.Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, died 395

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose:

The rash action of a Papal legate overstepping his authority, Cardinal Humbert, can hardly be called a “measured Conciliar Statement”. The same holds for the STATEMENT OF A LAYPERSON, the Emperor Charlemagne. These, and other incidents such as these, are the “old grudges” that I was referring to.

I can’t see how nursing them can possibly advance the cause of Godliness and Holines, or that of Christian Unity. I also don’t see how they are connected to any present day discussion except in tangent.
Fr Ambrose:

We cannot call measured conciliar statements addressed to the whole Church as “old grudges.” The statements need addressing. It is nothing at all to do with grudges but with the truth preserved by the Church in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nor do I believe that the Church of Rome is holding the filioque as any sort of grudge against Orthodoxy but that it has locked itself into a position which will require much humility to break free from.

You see, I’m Irish, too. And, as you know from our history, if we go back 1,300 years, we have legitimate grudges against half of Europe (Scandanavia, Britain, Germany, Scotland, Have I left anybody out?). If we Irish want to maintain our sanity and keep from being eaten alive by anger, we can’t even think of that history for more than a few minutes, and we most certainly can’t allow it to prevent us from doing something TODAY!

Fr. Ambrose, you once chided me for saying that you had referred to Charlemagne, as if you would never do so. Imagine myu syrprise when you did so, Why would you pursue such an unprofitable (for our Faith) line?
Fr Ambrose:

I do not know if Patriarch Bartholomew has agreed to to the Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Can anyone send information as to whether the Patriarch has indicated his agreement?

These links are from ORTHODOX sources:

praiseofglory.com/Stmaximus.htm/filioque.htm/
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm

There’s an interview with the Patriarch you might be interested in:

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=2855
Fr Ambrose:

Can I live with it? No, because it is in contradiction to the teaching of Florence which is considered infallible by the Church of Rome and which preempts the Clarification. So it is muddying the waters.

We must continue the dialogue and wait and see how Rome will deal with Florence.

---

“Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers
have set” -Proverbs 22.28

Fr. Ambrose,why should Rome, or any entity for that matter, go any further in negotiations knowing the answer will be, “NO?”

And, what good is “Dislogue” when people such as yourself and Orthodoc continue to bring up Charlemagne and other 1,300 year old HUMAN STUPIDITIES for which apologies (when apropriate) and/or explanations have been made and supposedly accepted?

Don’t you have similar PEOPLE on your side of the equation as Patriarch Batholomew hints at during the interview linked above? Could Western Catholics also do the same useless and senseless flagellation of Eastern Orthodox over some of the same types of people if they were so minded, setting back the cause of Christian Unity still more?

I believe the main issue is and remains the Pope, an does so in spite of the Formula Hormisdae or The Confession of Faith (regula fidei) of Hormisdas which was ratified in the most solemn manner on Holy Thursday, 28 March, 519, in the Cathedral of Constantinople in presence of a great throng of people:

“Prima salus est, regulam rectae fidei custodire et a constitutis Patrum nullatenus deviare. Et quia non potest Domini Nostri Jesu Christi praetermitti sententia dicentis: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Haec quae dicta sunt rerum probantur effectibus, quia in sede apostolica immaculata est semper Catholica conservata religio” (The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church” [Matt., xvi, 18], cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See).

newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm

Fr. Ambrose, what changed? Why can’t the East accept that NOW?

Blessings to you and your congregation.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

The rash action of a Papal legate overstepping his authority, Cardinal Humbert, can hardly be called a “measured Conciliar Statement”.

I was really speaking of the papal definition at Florence of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

I can’t see how nursing them can possibly advance the cause of Godliness and Holines, or that of Christian Unity. I also don’t see how they are connected to any present day discussion except in tangent.

I don’t know why you speak of grudges?.. grudges are such things as the resentment about the sack of Constantinople. But we are not talking about that but about trinitarian theology.

Fr. Ambrose,why should Rome, or any entity for that matter, go any further in negotiations knowing the answer will be, “NO?”

Well, when we get down to tintacks, the Orthodox are not engaging in a debate to find a way which will open a compromise in theology and allow the union of the Churches. Orthodoxy is not willing to do more than bear witness to the faith of the undivided Church and the holy Fathers and to invite Rome, indeed to implore Rome, to consider returning to that faith. Truth is not something to be bought and sold in the marketplace of ecumenism. The Church will continue to speak with the Church of Rome for as long as it takes, and if the union never happens until Judgement Day then we shall still go on speaking with Rome until Judgement Day.

what good is “Dislogue” when people such as yourself and Orthodoc continue to bring up Charlemagne and other 1,300 year old HUMAN STUPIDITIES

So why bring up the 1500 year old statement of Hormisdas?

The Orthodox have a very keen sense of living inside the history of the Church. What happened in the 6th century has as much reality for them as what happened in the 16th. I suppose that this Borg-like kind of intergenerational memory is both a good thing and a bad thing.

Formula Hormisdae or The Confession of Faith (regula fidei) of Hormisdas which was ratified in the most solemn manner on Holy Thursday, 28 March, 519, in the Cathedral of Constantinople in presence of a great throng of people:

"Prima salus est…, these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See).

Fr. Ambrose, what changed? Why can’t the East accept that NOW?

What changed was the gradual isolation of the Church of Rome from the rest of the Church - not its own fault but the result of the invasions of the Huns and Vandals which cut it off from its former easy communication with the Christian world of the Mediterranean. As a result of this isolation and to compensate against the barbarian influence, it developed ideas of temporal and ecclesiastical authority which it had not possessed before, It also, again because of its isolation and lacking the balance of contact with the rest of the Church, started a gradual formulation of dogmas which are not known in the Church of the first millenium and which are still unknown in the Church today.

That is, pretty much, the Orthodox view of what has happened. There is not one ounce of anti-Catholic feeling in what I have just written, but only an honest synopsis of the way the Church sees matters.

May Mary bless you and save you.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr. Ambrose,

On this question, we might want to refer people to the excellent interview of your Patriarch, Bartholomew 1. IMO, he gives a balanced view, and he doesn’t hold Patriarch Photius blameless, but he doesn’t hold the two “Hotheads” responsible for the schism: Their persons and their characters, certainly, played their part, but the factors that determined the course of the history of the Church do not lie there.
30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=2855
Fr Ambrose:

I do not realise that these are serious questions. The tradition of the Church comes to us from the Apostles and one Patriarch is not very important in the scheme of things. Also, I do not believe that it was Photius’ desire to find a reason to separate from the Church of Rome. The filioque question had been simmering and sometimes coming to the boil for some centuries before Photius. And when push came to shove it was Rome which created the Schism by the Anathema which accused the East of ommitting the filioque - surely one of the most inane and unhistorical reasons for creating a schism in the Catholic Church.

We must remember that whether or not Cardinal Humbert overstepped his authority by excommunicating Patriarch Michael Cerularius for 1) ommitting the filioque and 2) having married clergy - nevertheless Humbert’s action was not cancelled by the following Pope, Victor, who found it convenient to allow it to stand and to allow the Schism initiated by Cardinal Humbert to fester and consolidate.

Patriarch Bartholomew stated the issues that brought about the schism had been a festering, untreated boil for a long time before Umberto da Silvacandida left Rome for Constantinople, maybe even before he was born.

One must remember that Pope St. Leo IX died on 19 April, 1054, and the Catholic Church was without a Pope until 13 April, 1055, while the Writs were served 16 July, 1054.

One problem is, that once the Writ had been answered by another Writ, SINFUL HUMAN NATURE took over, and the Pope who took over couldn’t do as you would have him do, for reasons of sheer STUPID HUMAN PRIDE!

The interview with Batholomew leads one to ask what would have happened if he and Pope John Paul II had been the protagonists in the story.
Fr Ambrose:

The holy Apostle Paul requires women to cover their heads “out of respect for the angels” and for men to uncover their heads for the same reason. Surely you are not placing Saint Paul in the camp of heresy?! His teaching on this point is written in 1 Corinthians 11. Has the New Testament teaching been put aside? You go so far as to call it heresy!!

Well, You haven’t seen what the LIBERALS have done to the American Church! And, you forgot my friends from ECUSA and the C of E!

But, NO…Only an extreme modernist (or a LIBERAL) would dare to call St. Paul the Apostle a heretic or try to set aside his teachings…In my experience, they’ll just set aside and ignore those teachings of his that make them uncomfortable or that don’t jobe with their world view. That’s how they can Consecrate a man who left his wife and young children to move in with his gay lover.

Read the interview by Patriarch Bartholomew.

Blessings and good night.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

On this question, we might want to refer people to the excellent interview of your Patriarch, Bartholomew 1. IMO, he gives a balanced view,

Read the interview by Patriarch Bartholomew.

30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=2855

I have read it and in all honesty I see that in my own very inept way I have said what His All-Holiness has said so much more eloquently.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

I was really speaking of the papal definition at Florence of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

Then why refer to the rash and intemporate statements made by a LAYMAN who quite probably knew less than many of the people on this board? A LAYMAN, by the way, who was looking for a justification for “reuniting” the Roman Empire by force, under his Kaisarship?

That is completely different from discussing why those Docrines as explicated by the Council of Florence make Unity impossible as far as you’re concerned.

I’m sure you can see the difference, esp. after you had chided me for mistakenly accusing you of talking about Charlemange.
Fr Ambrose:

I don’t know why you speak of grudges?.. grudges are such things as the resentment about the sack of Constantinople. But we are not talking about that but about trinitarian theology.

The Pope has, in the name of Western Catholicism, apologized for the wrong and deplorable actions of those SINFUL WRETCHES who sacked Constantinople and has asked for forgiveness from the East. Fr., how does God the Father treat the sins of a penitent after he’s asked for forgiveness and you’ve pronounced absolution?

That’s how the Eastern Church has to treat this, at least if this prayer is to be realized, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive our trespasses.”

Not only that, but those people can only be said to represent Western Catholics today in the same way that the first sinners represent us in the Garden.

Doesn’t Baprism deal with that problem whole and entire?
Fr Ambrose:

So why bring up the 1500 year old statement of Hormisdas?

Because the “Formula Hormisdae” is proof positive that the Eastern Church once recognized the Primacy of the See of Peter and saw the Servant who occupied the position as the “Preserver of the Catholic Faith”.

The fact the Bishops of the East ratified this regula fidei in a solemn manner at the Cathedral Church of constantinople testifies to this.

This is what you would call a solemn proclamation by the “Hierarchy of the Eastern Church”, and must be held in dramatic contrast to the rantings of a LAYMAN (Charlemagne) which you and Orthodoc have both used as evidence of the desires of Western Bishops and of the Catholic Pope.

Can you see the difference?

God Bless You and Good Night.

In Christ, Michael