www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy A change in the Divine Liturgy?

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?

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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: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: [emphasis added]


In brief, as I wrote just over 10 years ago on this forum, Re: The Ratzinger Proposal: (a clarification by... Ratzinger)

@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.

Poor old Rome, now put in its rightful place, reduced to just "declaring dogmas or officially condemning errors."

I suggest you rethink your priorities.