Author Topic: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy  (Read 934 times)

Offline Xavier

  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Thanked: 162 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #15 on: November 14, 2017, 05:50:34 AM »
2. Unleavened Bread. This pretense is even more farcical. Dont you know the Armenian Churches use unleavened bread? Are you going to start another schism with them over it? Do you know the schismatic Caerularius in 1054 A.D. had the temerity to trample the Holy Eucharist under his chancellors feet because it was consecrated in unleavened bread? Fr. Adrian Fortescue documents this in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

"Still entirely unprovoked, he closed all the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate. His chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in azyme (unleavened) bread." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm He was excommunicated by Pope St. Innocent IX for so monstrous a crime as presuming to trample God Almighty under feet, a wickedness which cannot be sufficiently deplored in all the tongues of men and Angels. Is this the devil with whom you want to throw in your lot, throwing away your Catholic birthright?

Now, how does Passover commence in Scripture, pray tell?

"And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? " (Mat 26:17)

This is the Douay, which clearly shows Azymes or Unleavened Bread in Scripture, contrary to schismatics in Constantinople who used this as their latest pretext (after falling to Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm and needing to be rescued from those heresies by Rome each time, and with impious Erastian pretenses tried to raise a secular city above the Apostolic Throne) in their war against the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Holy Roman Church. See also 2 Cor 5:8 ""Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." Which gives clear warrant for unleavened Bread in the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharistic miracle discussed earlier also shows God consecrates the Host in unleavened Bread. Because God had so frequently commanded unleavened bread in the Old Testament in instituting Passover and the Feast of Azyme, some churches in the early ages used leavened bread to distinguish themselves from the synagogue, and avoid the danger of lapsing into Judaism. When this danger ceased to be proximate, both azyme and leavened bread became common.

The patristic and conciliar teaching and events establishing the Papacy have been clearly mentioned on the other thread .
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother,and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your Most Precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with my life I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration and supplication of the Holy Trinity, for unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father and priests, for good priestly vocations, and for all souls until the end of the world. Oh my Jesus, please accept my life sacrifice and my offerings and give me your grace that I may persevere obediently until my death. Amen." http://copiosa.org/heart/heart_sacred_consecration.htm Promises for Victim Soul consecration: "(1)Their names will be written in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary ... (2) Their life offering, together with the infinite merits of Jesus, can save many souls from damnation ...  (3) None of their family members will go to hell ... (4) On the day they offer their lives, their loved ones suffering in Purgatory will be released. (5) I will be with them at the hour of their death. They will not know Purgatory"
 
The following users thanked this post: Serviam, Lumen Christi

Offline An aspiring Thomist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 104 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2017, 08:19:18 AM »
The more I read about the Filioque, the more I am convinced that it has been used merely as an excuse for division and that East and West have essentially the same doctrine. What follows is a paraphrase/summary of Dr. Marshner's take on the issue. The East has always used two words to discribe the prossesion of the Holy Spirt. One, which was used for the Father spirating the Holy Spirit, meant to proceed as from an origin. The other used for the Son meant to proceed in a general since as merely coming from or though. To illustrate, imagine a radius in a circle which extends outside of the circle. The Greeks would use the first word to disribe the radius proceeding from the origin and the second to describe the radius coming or proceeding from the circumstance as the radius extends outside of the circle. The Latins on the other hand only had one word for proceeds which had a more general. It encompassed the meanings of both of the Greek words used for Spiration from the Father and the Son.

So, the Greeks purposely or accidentally interpreted the Latins as saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two absolute origins. And the Latins did the same when they thought the Greeks denied that the Spirit came from the Son in any way whatsoever. Once the language barrier is nicked down, the East can only differentiate substantially their doctrine from ours by denying that the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son, which would be to change thier own doctrine. The phase from the Father through the Son was used precisely because it is orthodox, has the same substantial meaning as the West and East doctrines, and cuts through symmantics.

And yes I do think it was uncannonical for small western churches to insert the Filioque into the creed, but all things considered it's not the end of the world. I would be interested in hearing from others if there is actually major differences on this issue aside from polemical reteroric.
 
The following users thanked this post: ÆneasQuébécois

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2017, 09:34:55 AM »
I disagree with you since the Catholic Church has defined, in Council, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle. That is not the same as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The former statement is a statement about the essence of God, while the latter is a correct statement about the divine economy. The Orthodox concern about the Catholic doctrine has broader implications as well, but the initial problem with the Catholic formulation is that it undoes Trinitarian theology by supposing that the Father and the Son share a characteristic (that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit) that gives those two Persons a characteristic not particular to one Person and not shared by all Persons. Taken to its logical conclusion, that formulation makes the Father and the Son somehow more God than the Holy Spirit.

That the Catholic Church is willing to backtrack from its dogmatic, concilliar statement about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle indicates a troublesome level of "ecumenism," when you think about it.
 
The following users thanked this post: Livenotonevil

Offline An aspiring Thomist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 104 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2017, 04:16:47 PM »
I disagree with you since the Catholic Church has defined, in Council, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle. That is not the same as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The former statement is a statement about the essence of God, while the latter is a correct statement about the divine economy. The Orthodox concern about the Catholic doctrine has broader implications as well, but the initial problem with the Catholic formulation is that it undoes Trinitarian theology by supposing that the Father and the Son share a characteristic (that is, the procession of the Holy Spirit) that gives those two Persons a characteristic not particular to one Person and not shared by all Persons. Taken to its logical conclusion, that formulation makes the Father and the Son somehow more God than the Holy Spirit.

That the Catholic Church is willing to backtrack from its dogmatic, concilliar statement about the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle indicates a troublesome level of "ecumenism," when you think about it.

Bolder: No the former is not about the essence of God, but about the relations of the of the Divine Persons. If you think logically that statement is about the essence of God then prove it. In fact if just one characteristic or relation of the Father or another Divine Person pertained to the essence of God, then the other Persons would not truest be God.

I do not see how logically the Father and Son having the same relation or characteristic as you call it makes them greater than the Holy Spirit, especially since the Son can only spirate the Holy Spirit because of the Father. Furthermore, if the Spirit is not spirated from the Son then what distinguishes the Son from the Spirit? Do you think the Spirit comes from the Son in any way? If not then begetting and spirating would have to be the specific difference. Spirating and begetting would have to be intrinsically or essentially or accidentally different and not just different by relation. But then the Son and Spirit are different not only by relation but by some accidental or essential difference in how they exist. I can't say I am sure about all of the above since I am not an expert but I think it's right.

The Father is God from whom God comes. The Son is God from God and from whom God comes. The Spirit is God from God. I forget who I heard this from but it is beautiful.
 

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2017, 04:53:51 PM »

Bolder: No the former is not about the essence of God, but about the relations of the of the Divine Persons. If you think logically that statement is about the essence of God then prove it. In fact if just one characteristic or relation of the Father or another Divine Person pertained to the essence of God, then the other Persons would not truest be God.

I'm not sure how to prove something that is axiomatic. The relations of the Divine Persons is the essence of God. But if you look at the definition from the Council of Florence, it talks about how the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle gets at the "nature" of the Trinity, which is to say that the discussion pertains to the essence of the Godhead. For example, "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

The rest of the argument, which I think addresses all of your questions, is as follows: Something that can be said about one Divine Person can either be said of all Three or uniquely of one Person. Eternality, omnipotence, and so on are common of all Three Person. Unique to each Person are these traits: The Father's fatherhood; the Son's begotteness; and the Holy Spirit's procession. The filioque, though, says that the Father and the Son share a trait not shared by the Holy Spirit: the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. That gives to the Father and the Son something that is neither common to all Three Persons nor unique to one. There is introduced into the Trinity, as a result, an imbalance that destroys the unity.

Again, everyone agrees that, in the Divine Economy, that is in the temporal mission of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. But the argument about the filioque has to do with the essence of God in himself, not the Divine Economy. What we can know about the essence of God is limited to what God chooses to reveal to us about his essence. In this instance, Christ said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore, the argument concludes, any statements that we can make about that are limited to Christ's revelation.
 
The following users thanked this post: Livenotonevil

Offline Livenotonevil

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2017, 05:50:21 PM »
Sir,

Shall we create a historical list of Orthodox dirty laundry to air out as well?  Will doing so prove anything?  No.


If it's for my soul's salvation, then yes - you should offer contradictory evidence to what was legitimately taught to me.

Jesus is the Pope of the Church.

This is a backwards way of saying Christ is the Head of the Church.

I don't think this is an accurate statement in terms of Roman ecclesiology. Quite literally interpreted, meaning that Pope Francis is Jesus, is blasphemous and causes my soul to be pierced.

Although I hope that, obviously, this isn't your intention.

And in Roman ecclesiology, aren't all Patriarchs (which is literally what the Latin word "Pope" means, and which is why the Alexandrian Orthodox Church (both Coptic, Orthodox, and Coptic Catholic) is referred to as "Pope" as well), Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests supposed to be symbols of Christ? It's just that "Peter" has an elevated role, chosen specifically to be the leader and the one source / fountain where one can learn the "true faith" in terms of dogmatic declarations. He has the leadership of the Roman Church in much the same way Christ was the leader on Earth.


The keys to heaven were given to one man, not to a council.

The Bible and the Church Fathers would disagree with you, especially from the Orthodox perspective.

"And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth:" -Revelation 3:7

"This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation; even the knowledge that we must not imagine a false Christ, a creature made out of nothing, but must confess Him the Son of God, truly possessed of the Divine nature." - Saint Hilary of Poitiers

"For (John) the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now." - Saint John Chrysostom

"...Peter, the first of the apostles, receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven for the binding and loosing of sins; and for the same congregation of saints, in reference to the perfect repose in the bosom of that mysterious life to come did the evangelist John recline on the breast of Christ. For it is not the former alone but the whole Church, that bindeth and looseth sins; nor did the latter alone drink at the fountain of the Lord's breast, to emit again in preaching, of the Word in the beginning, God with God, and those other sublime truths regarding the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead." - Saint Augustine

"He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be, loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church. For he who does not believe that his sins can be pardoned, falls into despair, and becomes worse as if no greater good remained for him than to be evil, when he has ceased to have faith in the results of his own repentance." - Saint Augustine

You can make an argument that the Keys are the Faith and that Peter being given the keys is symbolic of Christ literally giving the person of Peter the Faith forever - however, I have yet to find or read a Church Father or commentary on Matthew 16:18 that says such a thing.

God did not send his sons but just one Son - nor did He send His Son + some saints (patriarchs) that were mysteriously of equal footing with Jesus - one man was sent, Jesus. 

This is an extremely flawed argument, because using the same logic, I could say the same about the Pope like some kind of Protestant - but using a passive anti-argument, I'm not going to.

There is one head to the Church (Jesus) just as there is one head of the Church militant (the bishop of Rome). 

Okay, but what makes him infallible / have supreme jurisdiction?

Pejoratively referring to this as Protestant sola scriptura justification could equally unjustly be turned against the Orthodox justification through tradition by pejoratively calling it Pharisaical.

Which is what you have been doing in reference to Matthew 16:18, which is why I'm looking for definitive proof aside from one person's interpretation of the Bible - and I want to hear arguments against what I posted to see if I am truly in a state of schism or not. What one person says about the Bible or how I feel doesn't change historical facts / evidence, which is what I want.


The very sad reality is that this is a long run battle for authority, not theology - people do not want to submit themselves to authority. 

That's not true at all; the Orthodox Church sees inherited guilt, created grace, the Immaculate Conception, and the spiration of the Holy Spirit from Christ as a cause as heretical. Plus, ecclesiology is Faith.

The Protestants do not. 

Without a doubt true; I had a discussion with some Ratio Christi guys (probably the most intelligent Protestants who actually use the Church Fathers) and the reason they won't become Orthodox or Roman Catholic is because they don't want to listen to people above them.

The Orthodox do not.

That's not true at all, because there is a visible hierarchy that one must be in communion with to be Orthodox - and you have to obey the authority Orthodox Church, otherwise you are excommunicated. There are schismatic and vangate Orthodox Churches (like the Macedonian church or the Ukrainian church or the Orthodox Church of France who don't want to listen to authority and are excommunicated). You should listen to the Orthodox hymn of anathema, which anathematizes anybody who disobeys the authority of the Church or the Orthodox government.

My question is WHY does the Pope have that authority, and WHY is it NOT an usurpation / abuse of legitimate authority? Where in history / literature has it been demonstrated that the Pope has the same authority he does today?

The modern world does not.  Is anyone really losing sleep over the filioque?
Of course the modern world doesn't. I'm losing sleep over it!

The division between Orthodox and Catholics is shameful.

I wish the schism didn't happen, but it did - and the question is, which the True Faith, and which one is the True Church of Christ?
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt
 

Offline Livenotonevil

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2017, 06:05:46 PM »
2. Unleavened Bread. This pretense is even more farcical. Don't you know the Armenian Churches use unleavened bread? Are you going to start another schism with them over it? Do you know the schismatic Caerularius in 1054 A.D. had the temerity to trample the Holy Eucharist under his chancellors feet because it was consecrated in unleavened bread? Fr. Adrian Fortescue documents this in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
"Still entirely unprovoked, he closed all the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate. His chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in azyme (unleavened) bread." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm He was excommunicated by Pope St. Innocent IX for so monstrous a crime as presuming to trample God Almighty under feet, a wickedness which cannot be sufficiently deplored in all the tongues of men and Angels. Is this the devil with whom you want to throw in your lot, throwing away your Catholic birthright?


Now, how does Passover commence in Scripture, pray tell?

"And on the first day of the Azymes, the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the pasch? " (Mat 26:17)

This is the Douay, which clearly shows Azymes or Unleavened Bread in Scripture, contrary to schismatics in Constantinople who used this as their latest pretext (after falling to Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm and needing to be rescued from those heresies by Rome each time, and with impious Erastian pretenses tried to raise a secular city above the Apostolic Throne) in their war against the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Holy Roman Church. See also 2 Cor 5:8 ""Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." Which gives clear warrant for unleavened Bread in the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharistic miracle discussed earlier also shows God consecrates the Host in unleavened Bread. Because God had so frequently commanded unleavened bread in the Old Testament in instituting Passover and the Feast of Azyme, some churches in the early ages used leavened bread to distinguish themselves from the synagogue, and avoid the danger of lapsing into Judaism. When this danger ceased to be proximate, both azyme and leavened bread became common.

The patristic and conciliar teaching and events establishing the Papacy have been clearly mentioned on the other thread .

Bold Point 1 ... I mean, the Eastern Orthodox Church isn't in communion with the Armenian church, and the issue of Azyme bread has actually caused some Oriental Orthodox to break communion with the Armenian church.

Also, I would say that it is disingenuous to suggest that the Armenian church has had no Latin influence.










Bold Point 2: Outside the Catholic encyclopedia, I found no evidence that this ever happened. Also, this entry in the Catholic encyclopedia is disingenuous too, as the Latin churches were closed after the Byzantine Churches in Italy were forced to use unleavened bread by the Normans with direct, literal approval from the Pope.

Bold Point 3: The Gospel of John is explicitly clear in avoiding the term "Azymous" and using "Artous" instead. Although the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke seem to suggest unleavened bread, John very clearly says "leavened bread."

Bold Point 4: This is according to Thomas Aquinas and nobody else. I've read the Catholic Encyclopedia before too you know  ;)

Bold Point 5: What Conciliar and Patristic Teaching are you talking about?
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt
 

Offline Lumen Christi

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Thanked: 221 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2017, 06:35:40 PM »
"Pope Clement I
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80])."

Notice the use of "our" and "us."

"Ignatius of Antioch
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1)."

There can only be one president. A country only has one president. A Church can only have one president. Bodies do not have multiple heads.

"Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189])."

According to St. Irenaeus, the Orthodox must agree with the church in Rome due to its superior origin. The onus is on your sect to acknowledge the Church, not for the Church to submit to your sect.

"Firmilian
“[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253])."

Notice that the foundations of the Church were laid on Peter and his successors, not on Bartholomew, nor Peter alongside all the other apostles equally. It's only on Peter and his successors.

http://www.churchfathers.org/category/the-church-and-the-papacy/authority-of-the-pope/
 

Offline ermy_law

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2017, 07:06:29 PM »
Selectively quoting from the church fathers is a useless endeavor. For example, Pope St. Gregory the Great referred to the three Sees of Peter as one see: “Though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark to Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, "That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us" [John 17:21].”

Your other quotes rely on a conflation of the Church of Rome with the person of the pope. Also no one questions the presidency of an orthodox pope of Rome — this is owing to the fact that he is the bishop of the revered Church of Rome, which is revered due to the martyrs, among other reasons.

Also, I recall that the disciples once asked Christ who was the greatest among them when they were disputing it. I also recall St. Paul exhorting againat sectarianism amongst the followers of certain disciples and apostles.
 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Hopeful Fatalist
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 816
  • Thanked: 322 times
  • Religion: Old Christian
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2017, 07:36:44 PM »
Also, I would say that it is disingenuous to suggest that the Armenian church has had no Latin influence.

Which only reveals good and pious taste on their part.
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." — Justin Martyr, First Apology. Chap. LXVI. — Of the Eucharist.
 

Offline Livenotonevil

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2017, 07:44:03 PM »
It's pretty, but Xavier argued the Armenian church in order to demonstrate that it was an independent entity which also happened to use unleavened bread.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt
 

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Hopeful Fatalist
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 816
  • Thanked: 322 times
  • Religion: Old Christian
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2017, 07:46:03 PM »
It's pretty, but Xavier argued the Armenian church in order to demonstrate that it was an independent entity which also happened to use unleavened bread.

Do they have Eucharistic Adoration?
"And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." — Justin Martyr, First Apology. Chap. LXVI. — Of the Eucharist.
 

Offline Lumen Christi

  • Mary Garden
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 287
  • Thanked: 221 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2017, 09:30:46 PM »
Livenotonevil, you may find this helpful. It's a Catholic/Orthodox debate.

http://aotmclub.com/index.asp?PageID=9&EID=80
 

Offline Livenotonevil

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Vizekorporal
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Thanked: 14 times
  • Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2017, 10:23:02 PM »
It's pretty, but Xavier argued the Armenian church in order to demonstrate that it was an independent entity which also happened to use unleavened bread.

Do they have Eucharistic Adoration?

I'm not entirely sure of their tradition, but the practice of Eucharistic Adoration in the Roman tradition has its origin in Juliana of Liege together with Thomas Aquinas creating the Feast of Corpus Christi.

You won't find Eucharistic Adoration within Eastern Orthodoxy outside the context of Liturgy; within the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, there is a small Prosphora Procession after the Cherubic Hymn, and after the Epiklesis there is a Tradition of prostrating before the Eucharist itself.

Outside of Liturgy, the Eucharist isn't really used for adoration. Within the Roman Catholic Church, if one tries to use the Eucharist in a way not approved by the RCC, they commit Mortal Sin and put themselves outside the Roman Church. Within Orthodoxy, there really is no authorization to use the Eucharist in any way that isn't approved either, but this includes extra-liturgical adoration.

There's nothing inherently heretical (in my humble opinion) with extra-liturgical Eucharistic Adoration, it's just not part of the Eastern Tradition.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 10:26:20 PM by Livenotonevil »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt
 

Offline An aspiring Thomist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Thanked: 104 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2017, 11:13:56 PM »

Bolder: No the former is not about the essence of God, but about the relations of the of the Divine Persons. If you think logically that statement is about the essence of God then prove it. In fact if just one characteristic or relation of the Father or another Divine Person pertained to the essence of God, then the other Persons would not truest be God.

I'm not sure how to prove something that is axiomatic. The relations of the Divine Persons is the essence of God. But if you look at the definition from the Council of Florence, it talks about how the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle gets at the "nature" of the Trinity, which is to say that the discussion pertains to the essence of the Godhead. For example, "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

The rest of the argument, which I think addresses all of your questions, is as follows: Something that can be said about one Divine Person can either be said of all Three or uniquely of one Person. Eternality, omnipotence, and so on are common of all Three Person. Unique to each Person are these traits: The Father's fatherhood; the Son's begotteness; and the Holy Spirit's procession. The filioque, though, says that the Father and the Son share a trait not shared by the Holy Spirit: the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. That gives to the Father and the Son something that is neither common to all Three Persons nor unique to one. There is introduced into the Trinity, as a result, an imbalance that destroys the unity.

Again, everyone agrees that, in the Divine Economy, that is in the temporal mission of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. But the argument about the filioque has to do with the essence of God in himself, not the Divine Economy. What we can know about the essence of God is limited to what God chooses to reveal to us about his essence. In this instance, Christ said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore, the argument concludes, any statements that we can make about that are limited to Christ's revelation.

I think we are talking past each other or are in disagreement about a deeper issue than expected. If I understand you right then I am very surprised and wonder if you are representing Orthodoxy well. Then again you might be.

So in the West we believe God is simple. His essence is his existence. His mercy is his justice. Therefore, there can be no accidents in God. Furthermore, since the Father and the Son are both God, there can be no accidental difference between them (excluding the Incarnation). I know the Orthodox differ and think there are energies in God and that He is not absolutely simple. This may be why (not sure how, I am not too family with the Orthodox doctrine here) you think relations can pertain to the essence of God or to the essence of this or that Divine Person. If I understand you correctly, the Father's essence or nature is Divinity+Fatherhood while the Son's nature is Divinty+Sonship. Or Fatherhood and Sonship are accidents added to the Divine Essence. I don't think that is what you mean, but I don't know how else to interpret what you are saying.  If I am interpreting you right, then logically there are three Gods since there are three beings which differ essentially or accidentally (in the aristotelian sense of the words).

Upon further thought, by the essence of God do you just mean the inner relations of the Persons?

P.s I am just an armchair theologian and Trinitarian theology is complex.