S
SiempreFiel
Guest
Bump 
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Mickey,
mardukm:
mardukm:
Blessings,
Marduk
You’re getting paranoid in your old age. If you read the paragraph again, you will notice that I stated, in the paragraph immediately before the sentence you gave, that the post was not going to be addressed to you. The “your” in the sentence you gave is a referent to the “non-Catholic readers” I mentioned in the very same sentence, but since I had just finished stating that the post would not be addressed to you, the term obviously does not include you. :banghead:
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Mickey,
And your point for bringing this up? We’re talking about the context of an ecumenical council. That by itself dictates that the second portion of Apostolic Canon 34 is upheld.
But I believe the EO need a constant reminder of the first part of Apostolic Canon 34, because it seems in all their polemics and rhetoric, they forget about it, going so far as to claim 1) there is no such thing as a head bishop, or 2) the approval of the bishop of Rome is not necessary.
Blessings,
Marduk
And your point for bringing this up? We’re talking about the context of an ecumenical council. That by itself dictates that the second portion of Apostolic Canon 34 is upheld.But I believe the EO need a constant reminder of the first part of Apostolic Canon 34, because it seems in all their polemics and rhetoric, they forget about it, going so far as to claim 1) there is no such thing as a head bishop, or 2) the approval of the bishop of Rome is not necessary.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
To be honest, I am of the opinion that the Councils of Lyons, Florence, Trent and Vatican should be called Ecumenical: Lyons, Florence and Vatican because there was indeed Eastern/Oriental participation and/or representation; Trent because most of its dogmatic decrees, though not attended by the Eastern or Oriental bishops, were basically agreed to by the Eastern Orthodox anyway at its Council of Jerusalem (and the OO utilize the same arguments against Protestantism as that Catholics do).Thank your for your reply. I was going to work on a longer response, but I will have to save it, since I just got called in to get some extra hours at work.So just one thought. There may be plenty of sources which distinguish between Ecumenical v. General that are Latin, but in the vernacular and among many lay Catholics I know, all of the major post-Schism councils call them Ecumenical and mean it in the sense that the first seven were. I think that some of them may even think that as part of the end of the Schism, these councils would be seen by everyone else just as they see them now. There seems to be some disconnect?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Mickey
Blessings
This surely requires a new thread. Do you want to start a new one?
Blessings
M
Mickey
Guest
You do not know my age.
It is humorous to see you wriggle your way out of things with linguistic acrobats.
Again, thank you for the apology.
M
Mickey
Guest
The first part is meaningless without the rest.
M
Mickey
Guest
You can if you like. I will be leaving the forum for an extended period. Great Lent for the Holy Orthodox Church is soon approaching and I will be retreating to a more prayerful contemplation. Debate and Lent to not mix well for me.
But I will probably return after Pascha.
A
Allyson
Guest
Sorry, by Latin Catholics, I am referring to good friends of mine who are member of the Latin Rite and who express such a critique when I brought up my discovery of inaccuracies - which I found to be very disappointing, because I had used it as a place to get reliable information many times before. The text is a product of the scholarship and represents the spirituality of the Latin Rite. This is not meant as a slam. I simply mean that it represents the view of that scholarship 100 years ago.
Gross Historical inaccuracies:
The example I had in mind was Photius. Not to beat a dead horse, but the representation of the Great Schism and his supposed role as instigator is very disheartening. The article on him specifically begins with a fantastic story of his origins - as a daemon child that is immediately dismissed. Which leads me to ask; why even bring it up? This is an issue of rhetoric and style.
As for the actual information on the man himself. I was reading Francis Dvornik’s work on Photius (The Photian Schism) at the time, and having never read the article in the CE before, looked to see if they ever even wrote about him. There were glaring historical inaccuracies when compared with Dvornik’s examination of the primary sources, ect. Dvornik was showing how much of the misinformation planted by Photius enemies (who went to Rome from the East) or present in other documents of their testimony in Rome was taken without careful examination to be true by later medieval historians. One of Photius’s enemies worked in the libraries and forged sentences into original documents and forged others entirely. These documents were bound together as a representation of Photius. Dvornik uses textual criticism to show where there is forged information in a document. Often, it contradicts other passages in the same document.
Sadly, I borrowed this book from my school library, and I am no longer there. Specifics I can not give until I buy it.
I hope this helps.
God Bless,
R.
A
Allyson
Guest
And maybe they all will be called Ecumenical by all Christians after the hope and prayed for end of the Schism.
Although, this should not be a requirement. Once I asked a Ruthenian Nun which (or how many) she held as Ecumenical, she carefully answered seven, but that the others she considered authoritative. I certainly think that they are authoritative in the context of what and who they may apply to. That is they do not lack in importance.God Bless,
Rosemary (Okay, I am tired of R.; but I really like my Moniker.)
- Status