Why are Roman Catholics afraid to admit to being the first Protestants?

[JimR-OCDS]

What had any Pope to do with Nicea

Plenty. It was the Pope and his predecessor’s rejection of Arianism, which resulted in the continuing persecution of the Church, not just by the Roman pagans, but by the Aryans themselves. Constantine finally called for the council of Nicea, and it was there that the Bishops of the Church, made their stand against the Aryan heresy. Had the Pope not fought against the Heresy, there would not be an Orthodox Church today, but an Aryan one and a Roman Catholic one.

Jim

 

[jam070406]

The last I heard, St Maximos, great saint that he was, was not gifted with the charism of infallibility. Rome resisted the filioque for several hundred years, yet was unable to stop it’s progression through the western church.
**

the Fathers are held in great esteem in the East, are they not? funny how Orthodox quote Fathers to prove points but when it opposes their view they claim the Fathers can’t be trusted.

Eventually through the influence of the Franks, the dogma was imposed upon Rome. Aachen has spoken.
Michael

if the filioque was not approved by Rome than there should be no Orthodox opposition to communion with Rome then, eh?

i didn’t claim you were being polemic. but you said something about Catholic sources not being honest.

 

[Hesychios]

Plenty. It was the Pope and his predecessor’s rejection of Arianism, which resulted in the continuing persecution of the Church, not just by the Roman pagans, but by the Aryans themselves. Constantine finally called for the council of Nicea, and it was there that the Bishops of the Church, made their stand against the Aryan heresy. Had the Pope not fought against the Heresy, there would not be an Orthodox Church today, but an Aryan one and a Roman Catholic one.

Jim

This is incorrect. The Pope did not call the Council, nor attend it. The decisions of the council were the decisions of eastern bishops. And this does not support Papal Supremacy. The Pope could not order anyone, or dictate the agenda, or claim any credit for the results of the council.

We are grateful that the Pope was Orthodox at the time, Glory to God.

But as long as we are on the hypothetical subject, if Popes could fight the Aryan heresy in the fourth century with nothing but persuasion, why did they need to introduce the heresy of the filioque to fight Arianism in the sixth? Your argument does not hold water.

 

[Hesychios]

the Fathers are held in great esteem in the East, are they not? funny how Orthodox quote Fathers to prove points but when it opposes their view they claim the Fathers can’t be trusted.

When there is a concensus the influence of the fathers is very important. But even the great Augustrine proclaimed doctrine that is considered hereetical today. They are not impeccable.

if the filioque was not approved by Rome than there should be no Orthodox opposition to communion with Rome then, eh?

Did I say that? Your point does not follow from what I have stated.

Please try not to confuse the lurkers here by putting words in my mouth.

As a matter of fact, the filioque is a heresy originating from Spain. It was a sad day with the church in Rome adopted it for themselves several hundred years later under political pressure. It is always sad when someone loses their way.

I didn’t claim you were being polemic. but you said something about Catholic sources not being honest.

I said you will not find the information about the contents of the Bull on Catholic sources. Is that dishonest?

But I appreciate the fact that you did not see my motives as merely polemical. I also recognize your sincerity and honesty.

We don’t have to agree in order to be friends. We likely will never agree about many things, but that’s OK.

Michael

 

[jam070406]

When there is a concensus the influence of the fathers is very important. But even the great Augustrine proclaimed doctrine that is considered hereetical today. They are not impeccable. Did I say that? Your point does not follow from what I have stated.

Please try not to confuse the lurkers here by putting words in my mouth.

As a matter of fact, the filioque is a heresy originating from Spain. It was a sad day with the church in Rome adopted it for themselves several hundred years later under political pressure. It is always sad when someone loses their way.
I said you will not find the information about the contents of the Bull on Catholic sources. Is that dishonest?

But I appreciate the fact that you did not see my motives as merely polemical. I also recognize your sincerity and honesty.

We don’t have to agree in order to be friends. We likely will never agree about many things, but that’s OK.

Michael

thank you Michael.

yeah, sorry i didn’t feel like scrolling around to find your quote. it was the comment on the Bull. i’ve never done the research but i’m sure you were not being dishonest.

i know these topics can get passionate.

and don’t get me wrong, i’d love to see full unity as One church.
God bless you!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is incorrect. The Pope did not call the Council, nor attend it. The decisions of the council were the decisions of eastern bishops. And this does not support Papal Supremacy. The Pope could not order anyone, or dictate the agenda, or claim any credit for the results of the council.

We are grateful that the Pope was Orthodox at the time, Glory to God.

But as long as we are on the hypothetical subject, if Popes could fight the Aryan heresy in the fourth century with nothing but persuasion, why did they need to introduce the heresy of the filioque to fight Arianism in the sixth? Your argument does not hold water.

Althought the Pope himself did not attend, he sent representatitves, two priest, one of whom was named Vito.
Although the council was dominated by Eastern Bishops, for it was the Arian heresy in the East which was the cause of the council, in the end, Rome won. Also, the Nicene Creed which came out of the council, upheld the Roman baptismal rite of the Apostles Creed. Bottom line is, it was the Pope in Rome who was the defender of the true teachings we have today, and the victory against the Arians in the East, was due to his holding to the truth and his authority.

Jim

 

[mdstanzel]

Let me step out on a limb. Don’t saw it off yet. Since I’ve returned to Catholicism I’ve been wondering about the Great Scism taught by both Orthodox and Catholic. Could it be that both the Orthodox and Catholic are both right and yet both wrong? What are your thoughts. I am also looking for information on civilized debate over the issue. I know some of it but I’d like to know more. I find a lot of naughty behavior from both sides. However, Orhodox seem to be a little more hostile over the subject. But I would prefer to over look that attitude. I’m sure there are Catholics that act the same way.

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello JimR,

Althought the Pope himself did not attend, he sent representatitves, two priest, one of whom was named Vito.
Although the council was dominated by Eastern Bishops, for it was the Arian heresy in the East which was the cause of the council, in the end, Rome won. Also, the Nicene Creed which came out of the council, upheld the Roman baptismal rite of the Apostles Creed. Bottom line is, it was the Pope in Rome who was the defender of the true teachings we have today, and the victory against the Arians in the East, was due to his holding to the truth and his authority.

Jim

The bishop of Roma did not host the Council, or call the Council. He also did not chair the Council, neither did his representatives although all representatives and bishops were regarded as important and the legates from Roma were no exception.

Each bishop was allowed to bring two priests and three deacons. Apparently the bishop of Roma was not disposed to travel but sent his two allowable priests to observe and report back.

The Pope of Roma was orthodox at the time, this he shared with the Pope of Alexandria (the main protagonist of Arius, for this was an issue that arose from one of his priests).

As for the Creed, I will quote Jaroslav Pelikan, a noted historian. Book 1 of of his five book set on THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION

(under) Christ as Homoousios

After various personal and administrative gambits had failed to silence the Arians, a regional council held at Antioch, early in 325, drawing upon an epistle of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, promulgated a lengthy statement of “the faith” in Christ as divine; it anathematized “those who say otr think or preach that the Son of God is a creature or has come into being or has been made and is not truly begotten, or that there was a then when he did not exist”. In it’s positive section the statement of faith described Christ as “not made, but properly and offspring, but begotten in an ineffable, indescribable manner,” as one who “exists everlastingly and did not at one time not exist.” It had many verbatim citations from Arian theology, even though it did not mention Arius by name, and it affirmed the “orthodox faith concerning father and son,” which Alexander {bishop od Alexandria} had announced with the formula: These we teach, these we preach, these are the Apostolic dogmas of the church.” And the council excommunicated the three men who had refused to sign the creed.

Later in the same year the doctrine set forth in this creed was elaborated and for the entire imperial church at Nicea: {what follows is the Creed as promulgated during that council}

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence (a different hypostasis or ousia),’ or ‘is created,’ or ‘is subject to alteration or change’ — these the church catholic anathematizes.”

The basis of the creed was not, as scholars believed for a long time on the basis of the letter of Eusebius describing the Council of Nicea, the baptismal creed of his church in Ceasaria; the most that modern research has been able to determine is that this was “some local baptismal creed, of Syro-Palestinian prevenance” and that “to go beyond this and attempt to identify the underlying formula would be an unprofitable exercise”. {Pelikan quotes J.N.D. Kelly here, Early Christian Creeds, 1950} Jaroslav Pelikan THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION 1971 page 200 and 201

 

[Zooey]

I have posted this in another thread and now I will post it here:

[SIGN]
" Jacob wrestled with God; the rest of us wrestle with each other!!
[/SIGN]

 

[Hesychios]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Hello JimR,

Althought the Pope himself did not attend, he sent representatitves, two priest, one of whom was named Vito.
Although the council was dominated by Eastern Bishops, for it was the Arian heresy in the East which was the cause of the council, in the end, Rome won. Also, the Nicene Creed which came out of the council, upheld the Roman baptismal rite of the Apostles Creed. Bottom line is, it was the Pope in Rome who was the defender of the true teachings we have today, and the victory against the Arians in the East, was due to his holding to the truth and his authority.

Jim

The bishop of Roma did not host the Council, or call the Council. He also did not chair the Council, neither did his representatives although all representatives and bishops were regarded as important and the legates from Roma were no exception.

Each bishop was allowed to bring two priests and three deacons. Apparently the bishop of Roma was not disposed to travel but sent his two allowable priests to observe and report back.

The Pope of Roma was orthodox at the time, this he shared with the Pope of Alexandria (the main protagonist of Arius, for this was an issue that arose from one of his priests).

As for the Creed, I will quote the late Jaroslav Pelikan, a noted historian. Book 1 of of his five book set on THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION

(Please forgive the amount I must type here, I think it is all important and Pelikan summarizes it so well.)

(under) Christ as Homoousios

After various personal and administrative gambits had failed to silence the Arians, a regional council held at Antioch, early in 325, drawing upon an epistle of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, promulgated a lengthy statement of “the faith” in Christ as divine; it anathematized “those who say otr think or preach that the Son of God is a creature or has come into being or has been made and is not truly begotten, or that there was a then when he did not exist”. In it’s positive section the statement of faith described Christ as “not made, but properly and offspring, but begotten in an ineffable, indescribable manner,” as one who “exists everlastingly and did not at one time not exist.” It had many verbatim citations from Arian theology, even though it did not mention Arius by name, and it affirmed the “orthodox faith concerning father and son,” which Alexander {bishop od Alexandria} had announced with the formula: These we teach, these we preach, these are the Apostolic dogmas of the church.” And the council excommunicated the three men who had refused to sign the creed.

Later in the same year the doctrine set forth in this creed was elaborated and for the entire imperial church at Nicea: {what follows is the Creed as promulgated during that council}

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence (a different hypostasis or ousia),’ or ‘is created,’ or ‘is subject to alteration or change’ — these the church catholic anathematizes.”

The basis of the creed was not, as scholars believed for a long time on the basis of the letter of Eusebius describing the Council of Nicea, the baptismal creed of his church in Ceasaria; the most that modern research has been able to determine is that this was “some local baptismal creed, of Syro-Palestinian provenance” and that “to go beyond this and attempt to identify the underlying formula would be an unprofitable exercise”. {Pelikan quotes J.N.D. Kelly here, Early Christian Creeds, 1950} Jaroslav Pelikan THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION 1971 page 200 and 201

(emphasis mine)
View attachment 721

{continued below}

 

[Hesychios]

{continued from above}

Mr. Pelikan goes on to write:

…Initially, it seems, the council had wanted to adhere to the ipsissima verba of scripture, such as that the Son was “from God”, but when passages like I Cor 8:6 and 2 Cor 5:17 were adduced to prove that “all things were from God” in the sense of being created by him, the bishops at the council "were forced to express more distinctly the sense of the words ‘from God’ " This they did especially in two formulas: “only-begotten, that is, from the ousia of the Father”; and “homoousios.” In the Gospel of John,and in I John–especially if, as many fourth century theologians supposed, the varient readin “the only begotten one, God” is the correct one in John 1:18–the term had something of the quality of a technical title, at the very least, it had stressed the uniqueness of the “begetting” of Christ by God. But in his confession of faith addressed to Alexander, Arius had explained it to mean among other things, “A perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures.” Asterius had declared that though Christ was called “the power of God,” nevertheless “there are many of those powers which are one by one created by him [God], of which Christ is the first-born and only-begotten.”

The creed at Nicea, therefore, called the Son “only-begotten, that is, from the ousia of the Father,” in a sense quite different from the way all (other) creatures could be said to be “from God.” It was also an attack on Arius–in fact, a direct turning upon him of the very weapon he had brought–when the creed designated Christ as homoousios. According to Eusebius, the the term was added at the urging of Constantine; and it usually has been attributed to Western sources, mediated through Ossius of Cordova. The variety of it’s meanings and it’s previous association with Gnosticism–and, as Arius had pointed out–with Manichaeism–made suspect to the orthodox; its identification with the condemned ideas of Paul of Samosota was to be a source of embarassment to it defenders long after Nicea. But at Nicea, the doctrine it expressed was “that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the genetos creatures [that is, those that have a beginning], but that He is in in every way assimilated to the Father alone who begat Him, and that He is not out of any other hypostasis and ousia, but out of the Father”

The ant-Arian polemic of these two additions was made even more explicit by the closing anathemas of the creed, which read like a summa of Arian dogmatics. They condemned any and all of the various formulasby which Arius and his supporters had attempted to range Christ on the other side of the line separating Creator from creature…Condemned out his own moth Arius refused to sign the creed; in this act of heroismand honesty he was joined, apparently, by only two of the council fathers. All the rest saluted the emperor, signed the formula, and went right on teaching as they always had. In the case of most of them, this meant a doctrine of Christ somewhere between that of Arius and that of Alexander.

Yet it was the doctrine espoused by Alexander, as refined after further clarification and violent controversy, that the palm was given, and it was in the light of this doctrine that the creed of Nicea came to be interpreted. We can summarize at the present point in our narrative, even though, (as will become clear later in this section,) it represented anything but theological unanimity at the time of the council of Nicea itself, much less during the half-century that followed. Among the expositors of the “faith of Nicea”, Athanasius, everyone agrees, should have pride of place; but Amphilochius and especially Didymus in the East, and Ambrose and Hilary in the West, deserve to be ranged alongside him, if for no other reason than because of the intricate web of intellectual and literary relations among them. Jaroslav Pelikan THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION 1971 page 202 and 203
http://www.orthodox.pl/Images/Borders/venzel2-2.gif

The typing errors where they might occur, are mine. The grammer and punctuation are as I found it.

I highly recommend that everyone do an in-depth study of the Christological controversy. It is extremely interesting and gives one a real sense for the interactions of the early church fathers.

http://www.transchurch.org/mosaics/mosaic_files/tranmos.jpg

 

[Sixtus]

Quote:Orthodoxy teaches no errors (even the Roman Catholic church publicly acknowledges that ).

I am not really expecting most Roman Catholics to agree with me, and that’s OK. I don’t expect to change your minds.

I am so glad you said ‘most’ and not ‘all’!

There are those of us who are actively working towards Unity Among Equals.

The ‘Roman’ catholic church where I attend is working towards unity by publicly honouring great Eastern feasts and encouraging laity to do likewise.

In Christ

 

[mark_a]

Largely through the influence of Protestants on this forum, the facts about the Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church, I have come to realise that Roman Catholics are in fact the first protestants.

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants

Maybe it’s just our American culture, but Christianity is generally divided into Catholic and Protestant.

 

[Sixtus]

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants
—End Quote—
Maybe it’s just our American culture, but Christianity is generally divided into Catholic and Protestant.

My dear Mark

My original question was not intended to be taken literally. It is of course rhetorical to engage debate

 

[Sixtus]

So why condemn luther’s followers when you taught them how to be protestants
—End Quote—
Maybe it’s just our American culture, but Christianity is generally divided into Catholic and Protestant.

My dear Mark

Just because Uncle Sam has helped us out of the poo when we were in most need of it, in two world wars, please do not assume we are all ‘Yankees’. I am an Englishman

My original question was not intended to be taken literally. It is of course rhetorical to engage debate

 

[Hesychios]

Let me step out on a limb. Don’t saw it off yet. Since I’ve returned to Catholicism I’ve been wondering about the Great Scism taught by both Orthodox and Catholic. Could it be that both the Orthodox and Catholic are both right and yet both wrong?.. I find a lot of naughty behavior from both sides. However, Orhodox seem to be a little more hostile over the subject. But I would prefer to over look that attitude. I’m sure there are Catholics that act the same way.

I am trying not to be hostile, I am sorry if I come off that way.

Orthodox know we are guests here, and as a group the regulars try to police themselves, but sometimes somebody new comes in and doesn’t observe the protocol.

In any case, we have become very familiar with the standard complaints laveled at us. It’s a real love-hate relationship if you think about it: Some Roman Catholics act enraged that we are not submissive to the Pope and let us know that, others are very curious and more than kind. It is definitely interesting posting here.

I have always felt that the best first step for us is to get to know each other, and Karl Keating has been more than kind to allow the open dialogue we have enjoyed here. I am quite grateful.

I know we have more in common than either of us have with Protestantism. We should make common cause when it counts, and be honest about it when we cannot. I think over time our churches will grow together through understanding.

Michael

 

[Sixtus]

Hesychios

Orthodox know we are guests here

My dear Hesychios, I cannot speak for the forum administrators [or wish to ] nor other Roman Catholics, but as far as I am concerned [and a lot more like me:thumbsup: ] you BELONG here as much as any.

As I see it regardless who is [or was] to blame, there is tragedy, the Holy Apostolic Church has split. The Holy Spirit is working to heal that split.

In the words of his late holiness JP 2 ‘we must learn to breathe using both lungs. Roman Catholics who are ignorant of the Eastern Rite are ignorant of the Church’!

My interpretation of that is that there is but one Holy Apostolic Catholic Church but there are two Rites: East and West. I see them both as co-equal parts of the same Apostolic Catholic Church. As such fail to see how one brother is less welcome here than another. I do not share your sentiment that you are ‘only guests’ here. This is as much your forum as it is ours

In Christ

 

[StMarkEofE]

Althought the Pope himself did not attend, he sent representatitves, two priest, one of whom was named Vito.
Although the council was dominated by Eastern Bishops, for it was the Arian heresy in the East which was the cause of the council, in the end, Rome won. Also, the Nicene Creed which came out of the council, upheld the Roman baptismal rite of the Apostles Creed. Bottom line is, it was the Pope in Rome who was the defender of the true teachings we have today, and the victory against the Arians in the East, was due to his holding to the truth and his authority.

Jim

Rome didnt win in the end. All of Christianity won. It was the weight of the Eastern bishops that held sway over Arianism which by the was still going on in Spain, and wasnt that Romes territory?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Arianism was still lingering in the East when the Patriarch, Michael Cerularius, persecuted and shut down Latin-Rite churches in the East.

The Great Schism had more to do with cultural pride than doctrine. The Church’s use of Latin as the official language over Greek, was a big problem in the East. However, the majority of Catholics at the time, spoke Latin, not Greek. So, making Latin the official language made sense.

The bottom line to the claim of this thread is, the idea that Roman Catholics split from the true Church, is bogus historically and morally.

Jim

 

[Hesychios]

Arianism was still lingering in the East when the Patriarch, Michael Cerularius, persecuted and shut down Latin-Rite churches in the East.

The Great Schism had more to do with cultural pride than doctrine. The Church’s use of Latin as the official language over Greek, was a big problem in the East. However, the majority of Catholics at the time, spoke Latin, not Greek. So, making Latin the official language made sense.

The bottom line to the claim of this thread is, the idea that Roman Catholics split from the true Church, is bogus historically and morally.

Jim

Peace to you.

Do you have sources for these claims, or is it just your imagination that brings you to these conclusions?

1. 
   *]The Church’s use of Latin as the official language over Greek, was a big problem in the East.
   *]the majority of Catholics at the time, spoke Latin, not Greek
   *]the idea that Roman Catholics split from the true Church, is bogus
   *] The Great Schism had more to do with cultural pride than doctrine
   I (or someone, I am sure before long) will address the matter of shutting down the Latin parishes separately. This is a very interesting historical moment, not to be overlooked!
   
   *Michael
   • http://www.iconograms.org/images/igimages/I0219000206S0527AB_photios_great.jpg