The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
nick.maecenas, NathanJA, Antonym, Don M, Journeyman
5,894 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 113 guests, and 29 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,254
Posts415,524
Members5,894
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
Quote
St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Domnum Marinum Cypri presbyterum (Letter to the priest Marinus of Cyprus), PG 91, 134D-136C.

“Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’

“The other has to do with the divine incarnation, because he has written, ‘The Lord, as man, is without original sin.’

“With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit — they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession; but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (προϊέναι) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence….

“The Romans have therefore been accused of things of which it is wrong to accuse them, whereas of the things of which the Byzantines have quite rightly been accused (viz., Monothelitism), they have, to date, made no self-defense, because neither have they gotten rid of the things introduced by them...

Something that people don't seem to realize when the quote the early fathers. They do not carry the same authority as an ecumenical council. The ecumenical council is the final word. And the sixth and seventh ecumenical councils pronounced anathema on anyone who would change or tamper with the canons of previous councils. Thus, the Roman Church is under that anathema. The early fathers were men and therefore, they are subject to producing theologumenon. The councils are to be obeyed.

You may not like this, and you may wish to "dialogue" all you want. Dialogue always seems to be the last resort of those who are backed into a corner by facts.

And I ask again --- does truth matter? Or do we get to believe any old thing we want to be cause of "tradition" and other agendas we have?

Quote
What then about the claim that the Latin-speaking Church has not made the Son into a cause of the Spirit when it asserts that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? How can that claim be squared with the decree of the Second Council of Lyons, that the Holy Spirit “æternaliter ex Patre & Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit,” i.e., he “proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as though from two principles, but as though from a single principle; not with two spirations, but with a single spiration”? Some Orthodox claim that St. Maximus cannot really be defending the filioque in the sense in which that doctrine was understood in the medieval West, because Maximus explicitly affirms that the Father is the only cause in the Trinity; to speak of Father and Son together as constituting a single principle of the Holy Spirit’s procession, as the Council of Lyons does, seems to take away the Father’s position as sole cause.
St. Maximus on the filioque [bekkos.wordpress.com]

Someone is not thinking this through. If you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds as from a "single principle," then you are muddling the personhood and distinctives of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.[/b][/color]

Do you understand the "as though from a single principle"? What does that convey? I think it and the filioque are a correct understanding because the Catholic Church:

1. says the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father
2. does say (single principle) from the Father and the Son: filioque or ex Patre & Filio
3. but does NOT say the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Son

[b][color:#CC0000]The natural condition of man is spiritual darkness. I don't go to pagans for my theology because they are in spiritual darkness, and this is shown by their behavior when they bow down to a garishly overdecorated elephant-god and worship it. Jesus said we can tell the condition of a tree by its fruit. What has been the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church since the Franks took it over?

This one sentence describes perfectly the spiritual and moral darkness in which they acted: “In the time of Pippin of Herestal (697-715) and Charles Martel (715-741), many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans.” Baptism does not automatically make you a saint on earth. In the case of the Franks, it apparently did nothing, as they and their successors followed a bloody and murderous trail of behavior right up into the 20th century when their Croatian spiritual progeny were caught killing Serbian Orthodox during WWII. Yet I am supposed to accept their theological ideas?

I
DON'T
THINK
SO

Of course, if you could just show me where Jesus said to kill your enemies and persecute those who disagee with your theology, well, that would really go a long way to helping me believe in the Roman Catholic distinctives that they created after the schism.

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by Ruthenian1988
@Irish_Ruthenian Out of curiosity, are you still a Ruthenian Catholic, or have you gone to the Orthodox Church? It sounded like you were convinced of Orthodoxy.

After the way I was treated by the Ruthenian metropolia, no, I am not in any way, nor ever interested again, in anything to do with the Ruthenians. FYI - I pray regularly for the men who abused me, as our Lord ordered us to do, but I am not interested at all in their eclessia or their friendship.

As for going to the Orthdox Church - I wish. For some reason unbeknownst to me, the Lord sent me to a small UCC parish where I am currently acting as cantor. I have prayed about it and the answer I get is still "No."

And unlike some people, I strive to be obedient. Don't always succeed at it, but when I get a clear and distinct order from God - well, I would be a fool to go against it.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 722
Likes: 13
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 722
Likes: 13
When the Council declared that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, it is my understanding that "single principle" refers to Their shared divinity, not their personhood which is distinct, of course, and not to be confused. You might think of the "filioque" this way: The Father, the source and origin of Trinitarian life, in eternally begetting the Son eternally brought forth the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both as to Their shared divinity. Our words about God are always analogous, and I shudder to even think of, what are ultimately, infinite and eternal concepts.

As to your sour feelings toward Latin Catholicism, I would just say that the barbarism displayed by the Nordic hoards that descended upon southern Europe in times past was not easily displaced by the Christianity they embraced. That barbarism was on display even among some of their warrior kings, princes, and yes, even lower and higher clergy. You might recall how Old Believers were fiercely persecuted in Moscow in the 17th century. Dostoyevsky might have singled that out as he did the Grand Inquisitor of Catholic Spain. Bad fruit is displayed on both sides in many epochs; it's the good fruit that has always insured the Church's survival.

Last edited by Utroque; 08/10/21 01:07 AM.
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 53
Likes: 12
R
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 53
Likes: 12
@Irish_Ruthenian That perplexes me. If you are convinced that Orthodoxy is true and Eastern Catholicism is false, why on Earth would you remain? Obedience is important, yes. But if Eastern Catholicism is false, how do you honor God by remaining obedient to false clerics?

I don't seek to challenge or debate with you, only to understand.

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by Ruthenian1988
@Irish_Ruthenian That perplexes me. If you are convinced that Orthodoxy is true and Eastern Catholicism is false, why on Earth would you remain? Obedience is important, yes. But if Eastern Catholicism is false, how do you honor God by remaining obedient to false clerics?

I don't seek to challenge or debate with you, only to understand.

I am as confused as you are. Quite frankly, had it not been for a couple of very clear answers to prayer in which I was directed to where I am now, I would have "doxxed" a long time ago, along with a dozen of my friends who formerly attended the Ruthenian parish I went to.

Honestly, I am at the point right now that I am trying to figure this one out. In reading your last response, I think that the word "false" is too harsh. Just like the Roman church, 90% of what is there is true and faithful to the apostolic deposit of faith. Can we just say in charity that there are errors in their theology and praxis? So this is what I am trying to figure out - do errors necessarily constitute heresy? I remember reading a priest who said that heresy involves Christ, not eclessial practice. In other words, to say that Christ is not God is heresy. To say that He has one will only (Monothelitism) is heresy. But to not baptize by three-fold immersion or to keep the Eucharist from your infant children is an error of eclessiology.

The other question for me, which I am still pondering and asking folks about, is this: where is the Church and what constitutes it? Traddydox and RadTradLatins both claim that the Church is constituted in them alone, and everyone else gets a free ticket to hell. Yet neither side appears willing to acknowledge that miracles in the name of Christ by trinitarian bodies have occurred outside their fold. Padre Pio and St. Paisios come to my immediate mind. Seeing this, I have to wonder if the Church is much wider and broader than either side allows for.

I am Orthodox in my theology and praxis. I have replaced the Rosary with the Jesus Prayer. I do the fasts as best I can. I reject as erroneous all that the Latin church invented after the schism of 1054. Yet the Orthodox will not allow that I am Orthodox for the one little sticking point of being "in communion with Rome." And the Roman Catholics get their hair set on fire when they find out that I don't accept the Immaculate Conception (which diminishes the glory of Mary) nor Indulgences.

It's a bizarre place to be in, believe me! As I said, i am as perplexed as you are and am trying to find out how to get a grip on this. I think the next thing I will read is Zogby and his take on being "in communion with Rome" and being Orthodox.

I think the one thing that is most discouraging to me in where I am at now is that the clergy and the laity don't seem to take Orthodoxy seriously. When I hear prayers for "our universal bishop, Francis Pope of Rome," my hair stands on end as I remember what Pope Gregory the Great said to Patriarch John the Faster regarding the use of the title "universal (ecumenical) bishop." He was not pleased - at all! Yet we casually use it as if it is nothing. Same thing with belief in Indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, etc. We seem to have forgotten who we are supposed to be. The men who signed the Union of Brest must be spinning in their graves.

I wouldn't say that Eastern Catholicism is false as much as what Pope Francis said about it recently - it is no longer needed. Make up your mind, Either be Orthodox or Roman Catholic.

I don't know if that helps at all. Like I said - confused.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
... But to not baptize by three-fold immersion or to keep the Eucharist from your infant children is an error of eclessiology...

I think the next thing I will read is Zogby and his take on being "in communion with Rome" and being Orthodox...

When I hear prayers for "our universal bishop, Francis Pope of Rome," my hair stands on end as I remember what Pope Gregory the Great said to Patriarch John the Faster regarding the use of the title "universal (ecumenical) bishop." He was not pleased - at all! Yet we casually use it as if it is nothing...

I wouldn't say that Eastern Catholicism is false as much as what Pope Francis said about it recently - it is no longer needed. Make up your mind, Either be Orthodox or Roman Catholic...
Your writing is at best idiotic or are you internationally flaming/trolling. Zogby was WRONG. You do not understand, probably through lack of sufficient study, the term "universal." The Archbishop of Constantinople claims the title Ecumenical Patriarch, so what then of your objection. You have not understood the ramifications of the information provided to you in this thread about baptism and the clear non-necessity of three-fold immersion. When and where did Pope Francis say " Eastern Catholicism... is no longer needed"?

Your own errors in just parroting polemics devoid of substance and truth is worse than all the alleged errors you have attributed to others.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,305
Likes: 18
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,305
Likes: 18
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
After the way I was treated by the Ruthenian metropolia, no, I am not in any way, nor ever interested again, in anything to do with the Ruthenians. FYI - I pray regularly for the men who abused me, as our Lord ordered us to do, but I am not interested at all in their eclessia or their friendship.

Then I suggest you message the Admin so you can change your username.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
Who is the admin? I will gladly do so.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,305
Likes: 18
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,305
Likes: 18
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
Who is the admin? I will gladly do so.

Go to member list. 8th down is Administrator. PM him.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 449
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
Who is the admin? I will gladly do so.

Go to member list. 8th down is Administrator. PM him.

Would be nice if the member list was readily available. I can't seem to find it.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,305
Likes: 18
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,305
Likes: 18
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by Irish_Ruthenian
Who is the admin? I will gladly do so.

Go to member list. 8th down is Administrator. PM him.

Would be nice if the member list was readily available. I can't seem to find it.

It is. Scroll to the top of the page.


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 53
Likes: 12
R
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 53
Likes: 12
The 2 point profession of faith by Archbishop Zoghby may have been rejected by Rome (rejected, not condemned from what I can find), that does not make the position wrong. To me, it seems the only rational way forward for Byzantine Catholics. We are, or ought to be, fully Orthodox while maintaining our communion with Rome. Anything less than this and we are not fully one or the other, and our existence is an accident of history waiting to be corrected. I think in time, as Rome slowly returns to an authentic understanding of the papacy, the Zoghby view will be vindicated.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Ruthenian1988
The 2 point profession of faith by Archbishop Zoghby may have been rejected by Rome (rejected, not condemned from what I can find), that does not make the position wrong. To me, it seems the only rational way forward for Byzantine Catholics. We are, or ought to be, fully Orthodox while maintaining our communion with Rome. Anything less than this and we are not fully one or the other, and our existence is an accident of history waiting to be corrected. I think in time, as Rome slowly returns to an authentic understanding of the papacy, the Zoghby view will be vindicated.
Archbishop Zoghby's well-meaning proposal needs a time-machine to a Church-past and we are the Church-present; the Church is not a museum. His proposal:
Quote
In February 1995, Zoghby declared a two-point Profession of Faith:

I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.
I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation.
Zoghby Initiative [en.wikipedia.org]

It leads to the distorted conclusions and opinions exhibited, for example, in the previous posts of Irish_Ruthenian in this thread.

The problem with it, though addressing a different but related initiative, is identified by Pope Benedict/Ratzinger:
Quote
A kind of ecumenical dogma seems to be developing here that needs some attention. Quite likely it began with this train of thought: For intercommunion with the Orthodox, the Catholic Church does not necessarily have to insist on acceptance of the dogmas of the second millennium. It was presumed that the Eastern Churches have remained in the traditional form of the first millennium, which in itself is legitimate and, if rightly understood, contains no contradiction to further developments. After all, the latter only unfolded what was already there in principle at the time of the undivided Church. I myself have already taken part in attempts to think things out like this [See Principles of Catholic Theology, 103-200 (written in 1976).] but meanwhile they have grown out of hand to the point where councils and dogmatic definitions of the second millennium are supposed to be regarded, not as ecumenical, but as particular developments in the Latin Church, constituting her private property in the sense of "our two traditions". But this distorts the initial attempt to think things out into a completely new thesis with far-reaching consequences. For this way of looking at it actually implies denial of the existence of the universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving entity is frozen at the end of the first. This strikes at the very heart of the idea of Church and tradition, because ultimately such an age test replaces the full authority of the Church, which is then left without a voice at the present day. Moreover, one might well ask, in reply to such an assertion, with what right people's con sciences, in such a particular Church as the Latin Church would then be, could be bound by such pronouncements. What once appeared as truth would have to be characterized as mere custom. The claim to truth that had hitherto been upheld would thus be disqualified as an abuse. All this means that a far-reaching thesis, the principles and consequences of which have not been thought out, has been raised to the status of a self-evident axiom.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Church, Ecumenism, and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecciesiology, Ignatius Press San Francisco. 83-84
[emphasis added]


In brief, as I wrote just over 10 years ago on this forum,
Quote
What's wrong with the Zoghby proposal, for instance: "... an [implicit;added ajk] denial of the existence of the Universal Church in the second millennium, while tradition as a living, truth-giving power is frozen at the end of the first."
Re: The Ratzinger Proposal: (a clarification by... Ratzinger)

Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 53
Likes: 12
R
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 53
Likes: 12
@ajk The problem with the Pope Emeritus' thinking in your last post is that it suggests, in a second hand sort of way, that Rome is the deciding factor of the universal church. That we all exist in a Roman vaccuum and that whatever Rome dictates in her local councils must be accepted as dogma by the East, otherwise he seems to think it implies the universal church cannot exist or function. Rome cannot act unilaterally against any of the Eastern or Oriental Churches. Outside of declaring dogmas or officially condemning errors, Rome has no real authority over the East (other than what we wrongly concede to them out of some weak show of solidarity and "unity"). And I'd note, for the Pope to exercise his magisterial authority, necessitates an ecumenical council in concert with all his brother bishops. Without having this consensus, a council cannot be ecumenical.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,224
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by Ruthenian1988
Outside of declaring dogmas or officially condemning errors, Rome has no real authority over the East ...
Poor old Rome, now put in its rightful place, reduced to just "declaring dogmas or officially condemning errors."

I suggest you rethink your priorities.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  Administrator, Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
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 - 1996-2023 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5