The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Alexander T., Raphael1999, Adrián Badida, fr nick, Andres Belizario
5640 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (Fr. Deacon Lance), 163 guests, and 80 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,827
Posts412,417
Members5,640
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: StuartK] #355675 11/10/10 02:02 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 106
C
catholicsacristan Offline
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by StuartK
[quote]

I have recordings of Liturgy at St. George Cathedral in Lviv, and the Filique most definitely is not there.


Glory to Jesus Christ!

It may not be in recordings from there, but they do take it. I was there for ordinations this past summer and can attest to it first hand.

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #355678 11/10/10 09:08 AM
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
T
Thanos888 Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
This thread is becoming very confusing.

I'm lost.

Can someone just kindly tell me Can a person have the Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church IF they reject the Filoque Dogma?

For me, the immaculate conception is now a non issue - the RC have clearly changed the definition of this so its OK for us.
Purgatory - I don't personally believe it, but its not in the creed which is good. As I said - Christ said to the thief on the cross "TODAY you shall be with me in Paradise". He didnt spend any time in purgatory.
Finally, the Primacy of Peter: I believe there were 12 apostles. Peter was definately the leader - or a leader - this is true. But when the See of Saint peter has added dogmas, you cannot expect us to follow therefore, the Coptic Orthodox Church is founded ON the faith of Saint Peter, on the faith of Saint Mark and the apostles. Their priesthood is valid, just as yours is.

If their priesthood is valid, then so are our sacraments.

Again, would Saint Mary appear in Egypt, the Holy Theotokos, to heal thousands, to be the reason why many converted to Christianity, if our Church was in ANYWAY heretical???

If the division with Rome was based purely on snobbery, I would agree.. but i know its not. The dogmatic issues that weigh heavily in the hearts of the Coptic Clergy are so important, they cannot just forget their spiritual traditions and spiritual teachings for the sake of just uniting to make all catholics feel happy.


Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #355728 11/11/10 04:08 AM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,009
dochawk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,009
Originally Posted by Thanos888

We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. You believe that the procession is from the Father and the Son. No?


Seven.

OK, cattle.

No, these answers make no sense, but neither does the question.

[Others with more theology will doubtless state this more clarly than I do.]

A lot of the problem comes from the differences between the Latin and Greek languages.

The Holy Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father, and proceeds temporally through the Son.

As near as I can tell, pretty much all Orthodox & Catholic theologians would agree with this statement.

And the creed used in each church says this.

However, Greek has several different words which translate to the same word in Latin. Using the Greek word used in the creed for procession, the Latin would come out as, "proceeds in origin from both the Father and the Son." Catholic theologians would agree that this is heretical.

Orthodox theologians would agree that the Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father and proceeds Temporally from the Son--but this translates to, "proceeds from the Father and proceeds from the Son"--which (in the absence of understanding the linguistic differences) may as well drop the identical verbs.

If what is actually meant is discussed, there is no dispute. Drop things to a few words, which translate differently, and you have a problem.

Yes, a thousand year problem due to mutual refusal (not merely failure) to understand what the other is saying.

The best term I have for this is, "recto-cranial inversion."

frown

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: dochawk] #355735 11/11/10 08:18 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
J
johnzonaras Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Thanos, my point has been made by Stuart and others.

the whole issue of the origin has been treated in detail by J.N.D. Kelly in the book "Early Christian Creeds."

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #355769 11/11/10 06:53 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9
T
theloveofwisdom Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9
Quote
Thanos888 said:
This thread is becoming very confusing.

Indeed... Any person in the right mind would think so. But I will try to explain to you why below. Indeed the Church is in a state of confusion.
Quote
Thanos888 said:
Can someone just kindly tell me Can a person have the Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church IF they reject the Filoque Dogma?

No catholic is allowed to publically reject any Dogma of the Catholic Church. Anything done/said that is contrary to this statement is a result of the failing's of churchmen- and there are MANY these days- even up to the Pope's of Rome themselves. They are only human after all, and we catholics believe that the infalliabilty of the Popes is restricted to Faith and Morals- NOT acts of prudence or policy.
So, to answer your question- if someone who openly and publically rejects any Dogma is admitted to the sacraments, it is not due to an allowance by the Church, but due to the failings of churchmen- Popes included.

Quote

Thanos888 said:
The RC have clearly changed the definition of this so its OK for us.

Pardon??? Would you mind providing a reference for this?? Let me save you the time and effort... There is no such reference. It is NOT possible for the church to change an infallibly defined dogma. And if you think that the Catholic Church is willing to change its dogma to please other churches in order to attain unity- then ANATHEMA TO SUCH A UNITY!!!! Such a unity makes God a liar. This is because the infallibly of the Church (through this pope) was invoked for this dogma. Here is part of the definition:
Quote

Pope Pius IX said:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.


We do not need to unite the Church. The church is already one- to say otherwise is blasphemy. Jesus prayed that his disciples be one, therefore, if we say that 'we need to unite' then Jesus's prayer (in John 17) was ineffective, this is blasphemy because He is God. The Church is one, just as the Nicene Creed says. And only one Church has all 4 marks of the Church mention in the creed-
1.ONE
2.HOLY
3.CATHOLIC(UNIVERSAL)
4.APOSTOLIC
To say the church is divided is to deny the creed you are trying to defend by denying the filioque.
"We believe in ONE holy catholic and apostolic church."
The Coptic Church and orthodox may be holy and apostolic- But they do not even claim to be ONE or Catholic(universal).
Only the Church united to Rome has claimed in the past that in it is found the unity and that others must necessarily enter into to be saved, just as all entered the Ark in the time of Noah to be saved. The One True Church must at least claim to be the One True Church. Any church that does not cannot be the One True Church. Only The Holy Catholic Church united to the Pope of Rome has all 4 marks of the true Church, especially UNIVERSAL.

You yourself said:
Quote

Thanos888 said:
the BEST thing about the Catholic Church is that a Catholic Christian is not united to his brother/sister by culture... what unites you IS Jesus Christ... not because members speak a certain language. This is what I dislike about many Orthodox Churches - sometimes you find it is more like a cultural centre... especially the Greek Orthodox Church.


The orthodox are not universal- they often only have a few rites, and are mostly national churches, not universal churches.

Quote
Thanos888 said:
TODAY you shall be with me in Paradise". He didnt spend any time in purgatory.


Thannos888, you should know that you have a very flawed conception of purgatory. As Catholics, we believe that there is a twofold effect of mortal sin on the soul. One effect is eternal damnation, and the other effect is damage to the soul. When we receive the forgiveness of sin (as a result of confession or perfect contrition), eternal damnation is removed, but the other effect of the sin remains- the damage to the soul. One must repair the damage done to the soul before entering heaven. This repair happens either in this life or the next- but it happens nonetheless. The good thief is an example of the repairing ones soul in this life. He took the physical punishment due to his sins, and said "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." LK 23:41. So the fact that he went "TODAY" into paradise does not contradict or undermine the teaching of Purgatory. It only means that that particular thief did not go to purgatory- not that there is no purgatory.

Quote
Thanos888 said:
the See of Saint peter has added dogmas

The See of Peter did not add dogma. Was the dogma of the Holy Trinity added in the Council of Nicea? Was the Dogma of the Theotikos added in the council of Emphasis? NO and NO. The church does not add Dogma- the church clarifies teaching already existent. This is what the Roman church has done in all things that you claim were 'invented' by the Roman Church.

Quote

Again, would Saint Mary appear in Egypt, the Holy Theotokos, to heal thousands, to be the reason why many converted to Christianity, if our Church was in ANYWAY heretical???

An apparition does not necessarily mean ones church is perfectly orthodox. Consider the following possibilities:

Perhaps it was not the blessed Mother in Zeitun- (I think it was though) But remember that Satan can appear as an Angel of Light. Even if people were healed, that does not prove it was from God. In the Gospels, the devils made people sick- if they can make people sick, then they can heal people too.
Perhaps it was the Blessed Mother in Zeitun-
but in that case, the Church united to the Roman Pope also has had amazing apparitions. Consider Fatima in 1917. It was the greatest public miracle since the resesrerction of Jesus. Therefore signs are not necessarily a sign of truth.
Perhaps it was the Blessed Mother in Zeitun-
but consider that she was silent. When the blessed mother appeared in Fatima in 1917, she warned about and predicted world war, warned of the annihilation of nations, she gave a vision of Hell, she warned that the people should repent and amend their lives, she gave a remedy to the problems etc...

Remember that we cannot say the Church is divided, we can only say that some left the True Church established by Jesus. The only Church that even claims to have all 4 marks of the Church of the Church of the Nicene Creed is the Church united to the Pope of Rome.

And it is for this reason the Devil is attacking Her.
The Holy Virgin's message at Fatima in 1917 basically says that the Church is the body of Christ, and today, she is going through a passion like the body of Jesus. The Church is being scoured, mocked, spat upon, confused with a crown of thorns, and being led up the hill of calvary to be crucified. This is why there is so much confusion (for example- the charismatic 'catholics', deterioration of liturgy, shunning of tradition etc..)

It makes sense to believe that if God allows the enemies of the Church to prevail over her completely because of the sinfulness of the churchmen, then the end if time will occur- This is because Jesus promised the Church will remain until the end of time. The end of Church is necessarily the end of the World.

But if God will in His mercy, and through the intercession of the Immaculate All Holy Mother of God, deigns to save His Church- then the blood of the martyrs will be the seed of Christians, and a new Christiandom will be established. The whole world will convert, adore Our Lord Jesus, and honor the Immaculate heart of His Mother- and a time of great peace will be given to the world.

All the difficulties you keep bringing up have been answered over and over in the past- unfortunately, few here have enough charity to tell you the truth you need to hear. All you need to do is look for the answers. I am willing to point you in the right direction or directly answer any questions you may have- but my time is limited so please bear with me.

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: theloveofwisdom] #355806 11/12/10 03:13 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
I
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
Originally Posted by theloveofwisdom
All the difficulties you keep bringing up have been answered over and over in the past- unfortunately, few here have enough charity to tell you the truth you need to hear. All you need to do is look for the answers. I am willing to point you in the right direction or directly answer any questions you may have- but my time is limited so please bear with me.


Perhaps you might want to answer those on a Traditionalist Latin forum, given the apparent disdain you have for this site.

Obviously, the Catholics here are neither charitable enough nor, I suspect, in your opinion, neither sufficiently 'o'rthodox nor Catholic to do so and the Orthodox here are, likewise, neither charitable enough to do so nor capable of doing so, especially given that they often
'only have a few rites' and are 'not universal'.

I so love it when folks come here to point out the errors of our ways and to save us from ourselves. I particularly enjoy it when their apparent hope is to save all of us - both the Catholics and Orthodox among us - we may not be able to concelebrate, but at least we can be consaved.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: theloveofwisdom] #355825 11/12/10 06:47 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,551
theophan Offline
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,551
theloveofwisdom:

Christ is in our midst!!

May I suggest that you go to Town Hall and read the first thread entitled "Who We are." This is not a Catholic board, but an Eastern Christian board wherein we have members of many different Eastern Churches and some Western members of both Latin Catholic and Protestant professions.

To echo Irish Melkite, please don't come here to sow discord. We are here learning from and about each other--something very much needed in a world that finds us all irrelevant because of our internal bickering. The tone you bring does nothing for our learning about each other or for Christian charity. If for no other reason, please go to 1Corinthians13 and let that chapter sink in before you come back with the type of post you've just placed here.

Bob
Moderator

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: theophan] #355831 11/12/10 09:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9
T
theloveofwisdom Offline
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9
Quote
To disagree or post an opposing view is one thing; to deluge the Forum with massive amounts of material and to harangue is another. We aren't a venue for (rhetoric) - Catholic or Orthodox; there are plenty of those.


theophan:
Thank you for this reference, it was helpful. Point well made. I understand and I will abide by your forum regulations from here and on. But, in my defense, I was simply responding to 'rhetoric' that was already posted and granted as true by some members of this forum. It seems that some members of this forum have a tolerance for one type of rhetoric, and not for another. The reason my response was so massive is because it was a response to already existing massive amounts of rhetoric posted before me by Thanos888.

Thanos888:
I am sincerely interested in where I can find more information regarding Rome changing its dogmas for ecumenical reasons (ie: regarding the immaculate conception). Please provide us with a reference so as to enlighten us all, myself included.

Irish Melkite:
I don't think its prudent to post things such as what I've tried to respond to without providing some source or reference- I am new to this forum, and I'm very surprised at the degree which some of the EC's dissent with the Magisteriam of the Roman Church whom they claim and defend as their head. I'm just trying to make sense of this all. I find that I've had to ask for sources for other things that were discussed through out this forum- and no one seems to be able to come up with anything. Other members have expressed similar concerns as well. I understand this is not an academic venue- it is just a forum... but how much unanswered rhetoric, and unsubstantiated claims are we going to allow to clutter this forum? How useful will this forum really be if that is the case? Are we then just here learning about rumors of the faith we share, or are we hoping to learn about the actual faith we share. I do not disdain this site- I was contributing and doing by best to give a direct answer to a sincerely truth-seeking mind (Thanos888) whom I believe has been misinformed. I personally do not see how contributing what I believe to be true in an honest and straightforeward way is in anyway an uncharitable act. In fact, this is how I would want to be told the truth if I were inquiring- unambiguously. And I am inquiring. But if my contributions are not wanted, then so be it- I just hope that you will afford me the same charity I offered you and not simply dismiss my honest questions/objections/responses- the likes of which I've asked above.

Pax et Bonum

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: StuartK] #355856 11/13/10 03:41 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
mardukm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Stuart,

Originally Posted by StuartK
Do not fall into the trap of defining primacy in terms of jurisdiction. Primacy in the early Church worked on entirely different principles.

It's a rare thing, but we agree here. grin

Blessings

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #355857 11/13/10 03:50 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
mardukm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
I feel this thread is splitting into so many topics, it's hard to keep track.

Dear Brother Thanos888,

Regarding filioque, the theology of filioque is fully accepted in the Catholic Church, whether Western, Eastern or Oriental. I suspect you don't understand what the theology of filioque actually is. I think the Byzantines expressed it well when they stated in their condition for reunion with the Latin Catholic Church back in the 17th century that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, while insisting that they do not need to insert filioque into the Creed.

Not using filioque in the Creed is a different issue from acknowledging the theology behind filioque. The theology behind filioque is fully Orthodox. If you want a more detailed explanation, I would be willing to give it, but I would ask that you start a different thread for the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #355858 11/13/10 04:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
mardukm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Thanos888

Originally Posted by Thanos888
However, what exactly, dearest brothers, would you expect the Coptic Church to do when the head of the Catholic Church excommunicates us openly during a mass over the filoque?

What could we have done?

I feel there is much that you can learn here about the Catholic Church, not just from a doctrinal perspective, but also from a historical and ecclesiastical perspective. For example, it might interest you to know that "the head of the Catholic Church" did not excommunicate anyone. He was actually dead for several weeks already at the time his legate laid the Bull of Excommunication at Hagia Sofia.

I see you are also unaware of the varied Traditions within the Catholic Church. Though the Latins comprise the greatest portion of the Catholic Church, there are also Eastern Catholics (of the Byzantine Tradition), Oriental Catholics (Syriac, Armenian, Indian, Ethiopian, and Coptic Traditions), as well as Chaldean Catholics (of the Assyrian Tradition). It surprises you that there are Catholics who do not recite filioque in the Creed. I suspect there are more surprises in store for you (pleasant ones) as you learn more about the Catholic Church, if you are willing. We in the Catholic Church have learned to look very deeply into our theological underpinnings to find the Faith that unites us all. There are differences, to be sure, but no more than there were in the early Church. We have learned to live with them and with each other as one, as our Lord instructed us to do.

ByzCath is a wonderful place for you to learn about the Byzantine Catholic Faith - and even Oriental Catholicism. It is a great place to see how one can be Orthodox while being in communion with Rome. However, judging from your posts, your focus is on what the Latin Catholic Church teaches (or teaches wrongly, in your opinion). If you want to discuss about what the Latin Catholic Church really teaches in particular, may I humbly suggest that you visit the Catholic Answers website. Hear it from the horse's mouth, I always say.

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: mardukm] #355859 11/13/10 05:00 PM
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,284
Athanasius The L Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,284
Of course, at Catholic Answers, which has more than its fair share of lunatics, one can also run into a lot of garbage. I would not recommend it.

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Athanasius The L] #355878 11/14/10 09:55 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
I
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Of course, at Catholic Answers, which has more than its fair share of lunatics, one can also run into a lot of garbage. I would not recommend it.


Although I might have phrased it a bit differently than my brother, Ryan, I will readily admit to sharing much the same attitude about CA.

As a place to learn about the East, it is woefully inadequate. There are continued efforts by a few well-informed regulars there and by some of our own brothers and sisters (Hesychios, Deacons Randy and Lance, Mardukm, Ghosty, and ByzCath, among others - and, of late, our old friend, Alex) who post there, to minimize the misinformation that is bandied about by Latin posters who 'heard', 'read'. 'know', etc, one or the other factoid about the East. Regardless, damage is done regularly by persons who manage to sound authoritative with no real knowledge base on which to support their assertions and pronouncements.

As regards using it as a source for information about the Latin Church, it should be ideal; however, the vast number of Latin posters there, all coming from significantly different knowledge bases and levels of understanding, allows one to walk away with way too many variant answers to any question - a number of which will be absolutely incorrect.

Those differing opinions having been offered, let us not turn this thread into a discussion of other internet fora.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #355881 11/14/10 12:32 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
J
JimG Offline
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 396
Neil

I agree with you assessment of the fora on Catholic Answers. I think, unfortunately, ignorance is the medium of exchange on way to many discussions on the Internet. There is a forum on the Eastern Churches that I looked at a few times but I soon lost interest possibly because the posters have to spend so much time correcting errors posted on other fora there.

However, I believe the resources available on the site and the apologists pages are excellent sources of information on the Latin Church. The one caveat I would make is that, while they are all very orthodox with the small "o" many if not most of the people who work there are converted Protestants often Protestant ministers who are now professional lay apologists, a concept that is almost mind boggling for a cradle Catholic.

This has two implications, 1) their style is distinctly evangelical both in approach and delivery. Nothing wrong with this it is just "different." 2) Like a lot of converts I have run into, they are more "Catholic" than than the Catholics. Most of their positions are extremely conservative and inflexible. I am not saying this is good or bad, it is just the way it is.

Finally, one of their apologists, Jimmy Akin, has a new book called The Fathers Know Best which is apparently a commentary on the church fathers from a RC perspective. Mr. Akin is one of those former Protestant ministers and is extremely knowledgeable and articulate, at least on his radio appearances. I suspect this is a very good source for learning about the Latin understanding of the Church Fathers. I haven't read it yet but hope to get a copy soon.

Jim

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #355967 11/16/10 06:00 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Melkite Convert Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Hello everyone,

Yes, it has been a while since I have been on the boards, so to speak, but I can't believe what I just wandered into here. It seems as though everyone is not making the distinction between the Latin Catholic Church and the other Catholic Churches. While I can respect theloveofwisdom, it seems as though he or she is painting with a very broad brush and replaying Latin Catholic talking points.

For example, one has to remember that Eastern Catholics don't use the term "Purgatory". Yes, we pray for the dead, but we don't have the same theology of merit and eternal and temporal punishment that the West developed, so the doctrine of Purgatory as it is formulated by the West makes no sense to us. The Latin Church did not expect the Eastern Catholics to accept the Latin's formulation of the doctrine as seen in Article 5 of the Union of Brest: "We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church." By omission, the Church does not require us to think the same way about this.

The same goes for the Immaculate Conception. I really have no problem with the doctrine, but it doesn't make any sense to an Eastern Catholic because of the way the Holy Father chose to formulate the definition. Yes, we believe in the original sin but not original guilt. There again, the concept of merit is used and that really has no place in Eastern theological language.

Also, one need only look at Article 1 of the Union of Brest to get an insight into how the Latin Church allows the Eastern Churches to maintain our own theology:

"Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."

In other words, the Latin Church does not require us to believe in the double procession of the Spirit. Most Latin Catholics do not know this, but it is there for all to see.

http://east2west.org/ is a good place to start in trying to sort our the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Also, as regards the issue of priestly celibacy, I don't think the issue is as cut-and-dried as theloveofwisdom has expressed it in previous posts. There actually is more evidence that there might have been a married clergy in the West than previously thought. However, the understanding of clerical celibacy and how it developed is much more complicated and nuanced than we would care to admit. It's very easy to say Rome never had it and the East deviated from that practice, but I don't think it's quite that simple. Here's a good place to start with that: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html.

Thanos888: I respect your coming here to discuss these things, but please do keep in mind that this is an Eastern Catholic Forum. We are not Latin Catholics, and much of what you discuss applies only to the Latin Church. That is a distinction that very few people feel comfortable making (present company excluded), but it is there.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3