W
wisdomseeker
Guest
It is very interesting that the Creed reads One Holy Catholic Church a title that belongs to the Church of Rome.
note it does not say one holy orthodox catholic church.
- Status
note it does not say one holy orthodox catholic church.
J
jam070406
Guest
Fallacy!
The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism.
The patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523.
That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.”
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
It is written in the Bible, yet they rather stick with the fathers of the church than with what it is written in the Bible. as the church develops in its doctrine many opposes and choose to separate themselves from the one true church causing more and more divisions of the Body of Christ.
J
jam070406
Guest
Yep. The filioque has been used as an excuse to further schism.
And it’s only on the side of the East that this guilt falls. Even after many East and West have agreed that we profess the same understanding. This is truly sinful and goes directly against Jesus prayer “that they may be one.”
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
and how do they come with the conclusion that the CC is the schismatic church when they are the ones to dissagree with the teachings of the church?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL 1215:
“Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in
our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church’s honour. For, after the Greek church together with certain associates and supporters withdrew from the obedience of the apostolic see, the Greeks began to detest the Latins so much that, among other wicked things which they committed out of contempt for them, when Latin priests celebrated on their altars they would not offer sacrifice on them until they had washed them, as if the altars had been defiled thereby. The Greeks even had the temerity to rebaptize those baptized by the Latins; and some, as we are told, still do not fear to do this. Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God’s church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice.”
“Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in
our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church’s honour. For, after the Greek church together with certain associates and supporters withdrew from the obedience of the apostolic see, the Greeks began to detest the Latins so much that, among other wicked things which they committed out of contempt for them, when Latin priests celebrated on their altars they would not offer sacrifice on them until they had washed them, as if the altars had been defiled thereby. The Greeks even had the temerity to rebaptize those baptized by the Latins; and some, as we are told, still do not fear to do this. Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God’s church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice.”
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
THE FOUTH LATERAN COUNCIL 1215
Renewing the ancient privileges of the
patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.’
Renewing the ancient privileges of the
patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.’
V
VARC
Guest
Fallacy. Straw man argument. I never said that the Filioque was not confessed by some of the Fathers. I said that a few holy saints believed its insertion in the Creed was heretical.
Fallacy. Nonsequitor. Just because you can quote 5 Fathers in favor of Filioque it does not follow that the pope of Rome had the right to change the Creed. The canons of the Catholic Church are clear. No bishop, not the pope, nor any of the individual Fathers listed has the authority to unilaterally alter the Creed without the conscent of the Catholic Church.
Fallacy. Equivocation. There is a theological difference between operative progression and eternal progression. This gets a bit technical but if you want to dive into the deep Orthodox understanding of the Trinity orlapubs.com/AR/R140.html. In the isolated quotes you provided, it is evident, through the use of the terms through the son and when (denoting time), that those Fathers were discussing the actions of the Holy Spirit (what the Holy Spirit does). However, the Creed speaks of the eternal nature of the Holy Spirit (what the Holy Spirit is). Thus, according to the Orthodox, including Pope Leo III, its insertion in the Creed was heretical.
J
jam070406
Guest
Fallacy! It’s been shown that you must agree with the chair of Peter, which is the See of Rome. The final decision in faith and morals is and always has been from the Apostolic See of Rome.
“Rome has spoken”. Placing yourself outside the Church makes your arguments moot.
J
jam070406
Guest
My post of Saints affirming the Filioque was a response to this quote.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
How’s that? Alexandria is next in line, but I would expect Moscow to get it if New Rome lost it. I am 1) happy that the EP remain as he is in rank, 2) would if, God forbid, some tragedy force the reorganization of the Sees, I would be more than happy with Moscow at the helm.
My heart will still belong to Alexandria,
Of course not.
That’s a positive spin. We have another experience with it though. Of course for us it should be utlramarianism, since we are across the sea.
As our present purpose is to state what Ultramontanism is, it is beside our scope to expound the Catholic doctrine on the power of the Church and, in particular, of the pope, whether in spiritual or temporal matters, these subjects being treated elsewhere under their respective titles. It is sufficient here to indicate what our adversaries mean by Ultramontanism. For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it. One of the recent adversaries of Ultramontanism among Catholics was a priest, Professor Franz Xaver Kraus, who says “1. An Ultramontane is one who sets the idea of the Church above that of religion; 2. …who substitutes the pope for the Church; 3. …who believes that the kingdom of God is of this world and that, as medieval curialism asserted, the power of the keys, given to Peter, included temporal jurisdiction also; 4. …who believes that religious conviction can be imposed or broken with material force; 5. …who is ever ready to sacrifice to an extraneous authority the plain teaching of his own conscience.” …The character of Ultramontanism is manifested chiefly in the ardour with which it combats every movement of independence in the national Churches, the condemnation which it visits upon works written to defend that independence, its denial of the rights of the State in matters of government, of ecclesiastical administration and ecclesiastical control, the tenacity with which it has prosecuted the declaration of the dogma of the pope’s infallibility and with which it incessantly advocates the restoration of his temporal power as a necessary guarantee of his spiritual sovereignty."
The war against Ultramontanism is accounted for not merely by its adversaries’ denial of the genuine Catholic doctrine of the Church’s power and that of her supreme ruler, but also, and even more, by the consequences of that doctrine. It is altogether false to attribute to the Church either political aims of temporal dominion among the nations or the pretence that the pope can at his own pleasure depose sovereigns [evidently, he has not read Unam Sanctam] that the Catholic must, even in purely civil matters, subordinate his obedience towards his own sovereign to that which he owes to the pope, that the true fatherland of the Catholic is Rome, and so forth. These are either pure inventions or malicious travesties. It is neither scientific nor honest to attribute to “Ultramontanism” the particular teaching of some theologian or some school of times past; or to invoke certain facts in medieval history, which may be explained by the peculiar conditions, or by the rights which the popes possessed in the Middle Ages (for example, their rights in conferring the imperial crown). For the rest, it is sufficient to follow attentively, one by one, the struggle kept up in their journals and books to be convinced that this warfare by the Rationalist-Protestant-Modernist coalition against “Clericalism” or “Ultramontanism” is, fundamentally, directed against integral Catholicism–that is, against papal, anti-Liberal, and counter-Revolutionary Catholicism.
newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
Yes, a term I believed dreamed up by the Renaissance, like “Byzantine,” and for similar purposes.
Most of those who accuse us of it fault us for not following it in its most extreme form, the participation of the Orthodox Catholics in the council of Florence at the will of the emperor.
I’ve been called faaaaar worse.
Ultramontanist epitomizes what is wrong with Rome. I don’t care about Latin culture, Roman is obviously fine, Catholic too. The pare inter pares papacy is fine. But the Ultramontanist equation, pope of Rome=the Church has got to go.
I’m curious, how did Nestorianism get into this?
V
VARC
Guest
I stand by my statement that “the bishop of Rome overstepped his authority by making the change” because according to the canons of the 3rd and 6th Ecumenical Councils it unlawful for ANY bishop to change them. Technically my other statement (the Pope was unchallenged by anyone in the west which led to the papal pretensions of universal jurisdiction and infallibility) was begging the question but I think a strong case can be made for it.
What are you attempting to prove with this statement?
Fallacy. Stacking the deck. You cannot just quote Pope Gregory when he supports your assertions. He has said other things which refute your position.
“None of my predecessors has consented to bear this profane title, for when a Patriarch adopts for himself the title of ‘universal’, the title of Patriarch suffers discredit. No Christian, then, has the desire to adopt a title that would cause discredit to his brethren.”
“I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist”
Fallacy. Nonsequitor. It does not follow that affirmation of the formula advocates your modern views of the papacy. Rome had always been orthodox up to that time. It does not follow that Rome will always remain orthodox.
Fallacy. Card stacking. You did not quote the whole formula…
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied. From this hope and faith we by no means desire to be separated and, following the doctrine of the Fathers, we declare anathema all heresies, and, especially, the heretic Nestorius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, by Blessed Celestine, bishop of Rome, and by the venerable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. We likewise condemn and declare to be anathema Eutyches and Dioscoros of Alexandria, who were condemned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we follow and endorse. This Council followed the holy Council of Nicaea and preached the apostolic faith. And we condemn the assassin Timothy, surnamed Aelurus ”the Cat”] and also Peter [Mongos] of Alexandria, his disciple and follower in everything. We also declare anathema their helper and follower, Acacius of Constantinople, a bishop once condemned by the Apostolic See, and all those who remain in contact and company with them. Because this Acacius joined himself to their communion, he deserved to receive a judgment of condemnation similar to theirs. Furthermore, we condemn Peter ”the Fuller”] of Antioch with all his followers together together with the followers of all those mentioned above.
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome
If you would like to cite other phrases in this formula that you feel prove the papal position, be my guess. Just watch out for fallacies. In this formula, the emphasis is to keep the “true faith”. Submission to Rome is only a means to that end because Rome was Orthodox.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Although I am neither one, I would say that Constantinople for her part is being led by a false sense of how to handle her dire straits, much like Old Rome did during the Dark Ages. Moscow for her part is trying to recover from communism and reestablish where she left off before the Bolsheviks. The politics of both overlapp, and clash at times. Not the first time, not the last time, it has happened.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Just wanted to underline that.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
For starters, read the decrees and acts of the Ecumenical Councils.
And if for any reason you are interested in the Orthodox Catholic Church, stop by for a Divine Liturgy.
J
jam070406
Guest
Fallacy!
The Bishop of Rome is not just ANY Bishop.
Nonsequitor.
Rome HAS kept the “true faith”
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
No, it belongs to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, which Rome is free to rejoin.
Those words were laid down by the Fathers in New Rome, not Old Rome.
J
jam070406
Guest
btw wisdomseeker, A DL can be found at any Eastern Catholic (in communion with Rome) parish in your area.
I myself, attend a Melkite DL from time to time.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
which fathers? and when that happened?
- Status