Question on "2 Lungs" of the Church

[Michael G]

Could you cite in a MLA, APA or at least give me links, some sort of information that you might see in the MLA citation formate (Author (Leo IX), "(title of work)." Translator's name. Publication. (where it was printed), (year of printing), page #,/http:www linked website). How do you expect me to take your word for it? I want to check for context.

I do not need to cite anything. The Orthodox Church holds as being excommunicate from the Orthodox Church anyone who believes in the Trinitarian heresy that proclaims the Filioque. The excommunication began with Leo IX and Cardinal Humbert and has not been lifted, even if the anathemas were lifted. You are not going to listen to anyone, thus I am not going to waste my time looking up sources because no source will be authoritative enough for you.

 

[St. Columcille]

I do not need to cite anything. The Orthodox Church holds as being excommunicate from the Orthodox Church anyone who believes in the Trinitarian heresy that proclaims the Filioque. The excommunication began with Leo IX and Cardinal Humbert and has not been lifted, even if the anathemas were lifted. You are not going to listen to anyone, thus I am not going to waste my time looking up sources because no source will be authoritative enough for you.

Well, I can see you are not concerned with accuracy. Perhaps others would see the need and so help me. I would think, though, that others will see how an educated approach to citing their sources demonstrates a part of good apologetics. The greatest apologist, in my estimation, while I was growing up was the Baptist and founder of CRI (Christian Research Institute) Dr. Walter Martin (he wrote the "Kingdom of the Cults"). If you read his book on the cults, he quotes their own resourses accurately, without generalizations--so the cultist can check their church library and be confronted in a way that leads them out of the cult. Dr. Walter Martin has led numerous people to Christ away from Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and the like by focusing on accuracy at citing his opposition. The point in my estimation of a great apologist is not their own thoughts per se, but in their attention to detail in their research to context and to a clear works citation reference.

 

[Michael G]

Well, I can see you are not concerned with accuracy. Perhaps others would see the need and so help me. I would think, though, that others will see how an educated approach to citing their sources demonstrates a part of good apologetics. The greatest apologist, in my estimation, while I was growing up was the Baptist and founder of CRI (Christian Research Institute) Dr. Walter Martin (he wrote the "Kingdom of the Cults"). If you read his book on the cults, he quotes their own resourses accurately, without generalizations--so the cultist can check their church library and be confronted in a way that leads them out of the cult. Dr. Walter Martin has led numerous people to Christ away from Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and the like by focusing on accuracy at citing his opposition. The point in my estimation of a great apologist is not their own thoughts per se, but in their attention to detail in their research to context and to a clear works citation reference.

Smoke screen time. I accurately quoted the CCC to you and you blew that off as being an unauthoritative source. You love to aruge. It is not until you stop arguing and start listening that you will be lead to the truth.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Are you questioning if the council proclaimed an anathema on anyone who added or subtracted from the creed outside another ecumenical council? I can find sources for that if you want.

 

[MKJ]

Smoke screen time. I accurately quoted the CCC to you and you blew that off as being an unauthoritative source. You love to aruge. It is not until you stop arguing and start listening that you will be lead to the truth.

If you think what you say will go unheedind, making statements and then refusing to give the names of at least some of the relevant documents doesn't seem like the most sensible method to proceed.

 

[Michael G]

If you think what you say will go unheedind, making statements and then refusing to give the names of at least some of the relevant documents doesn't seem like the most sensible method to proceed.

I gave the relevant documents earlier in this thread regarding the teachings of the papacy from the Roman Catholic Church. I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document which is seen as dogma in the Roman Church, and yet St. C declared that document to be unauthoritative. Thus there is no reason to cite any document because St. C will find fault with it and not accept it.

 

[St. Columcille]

Smoke screen time. I accurately quoted the CCC to you and you blew that off as being an unauthoritative source. You love to aruge. It is not until you stop arguing and start listening that you will be lead to the truth.

What you did was copy and paste a large amount from the CCC. Small bites, each bite explained with context. The CCC is in my estimation a secondary source, the primary sources being the bibliographical citations. Albeit, the CCC is the best place to start in the research since it pretty much sums up the whole of Catholic teachings. Each of the CCC numbers is a short summary of a particular subtopic. You can run as many red herrings and never find any closer on any small bite.

There is also in my estimation a different question being asked. You can quote what it says about primacy, but in relation to what? What does the Roman Catholic Church say about the jurisidiction of each pope, what of their apostolic succession? Now we are going to other subtopics in relation to the "2 lung" concept. You have been trying to get me to say that "primacy" is "over" and not "among" equals. If the heresy of Honorius I was in the region of say an Eastern Pope, it would be the Eastern Pope's duty to make a solemn declaration against the heresy in keeping with his office. When Arianism was running rampant in the Eastern Churches, did the Patriarchs in the East teach against the ecumenical council of Nicea, even though there were many presbyters like Arius who were teaching falsely?

 

[St. Columcille]

Are you questioning if the council proclaimed an anathema on anyone who added or subtracted from the creed outside another ecumenical council? I can find sources for that if you want.

Just like Honorius I attempted to reconcile the Monophysite by changing the wording, as opposed to the meaning behind it (so that if he was successful the monophysites would retain their heretical understanding), what I am concerned with is a fair presentation that demonstrates not surface condemnation, but a real genuine understanding behind the meaning of what is being condemned.

 

[MKJ]

I gave the relevant documents earlier in this thread regarding the teachings of the papacy from the Roman Catholic Church. I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document which is seen as dogma in the Roman Church, and yet St. C declared that document to be unauthoritative. Thus there is no reason to cite any document because St. C will find fault with it and not accept it.

I would find this frustrating too, but it's probably better to leave the ball in the other person's court in such situations. Though I would think naming one example would be fine, rather than giving publishing information. Anyone can find that stuff out if they want it, at least with that kind of stuff.

 

[St. Columcille]

Though I would think naming one example would be fine, rather than giving publishing information. Anyone can find that stuff out if they want it, at least with that kind of stuff.

You are right about publishing information not being all that necessary at least in this forum. Albeit, I think the reasoning behind citing that information in essays in the MLA format does help identify page numbers as well as demonstrate bias. For instance, if I were to quote a publication from Lifeway (a Southern Baptist organization) on the errors of Jacobus Arminius--(Southern Baptists believe in OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved-a restipulation of Calvinism)--then it might not be the best source in presenting Arminianism. So if a publisher is an Eastern Orthodox publisher, rather than a Catholic publisher, it is probably a lot easier to get more accurate information on Eastern Orthodoxy from the EO publisher rather than a Catholic publisher. If you catch my drift. I personally think it is important, but there is a lot of online websites like CCEL where all one needs is a link and sometimes just the author and title of the work with book, chapter, and verse (if they have verses).

With page numbers, I think a great example would be reading a passage from "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. There are so many different publishers and reprintings that if I were to quote a page number from one of them, everyone else looking at a different publisher or reprinting might not find the quote at all. Hence a publisher, if you are quoting from a book a particular page number is fairly important. In such cases, it is probably easier to quote author, work, and then the book number (Lewis has "Mere Chrisitianity" broken into three books-The Case for Christianity (1942), Christian Behaviour (1942), and Beyond Personality (1944)) and title or number of chapter within that particular book.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Smoke screen time. I accurately quoted the CCC to you and you blew that off as being an unauthoritative source. You love to aruge. It is not until you stop arguing and start listening that you will be lead to the truth.

Since this topic is on the proverbial "2 lungs", it made me think of a verse in Luke 16 concerning the "us vs them"

I brought it up on this rather "heated" thread between the EO's/Protestants and the RCC church for those here interested
[My bro OthodoxyUSA just bowed out of it]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7504654/#post55864753

See yall later... I think the subject has run it's course.

Forgive me...

 

[Michael G]

I am done with this conversation. There is no use talking to those who talk so loudly and enjoy hearing their own voices so much that they don't hear what is being told to them.

 

[St. Columcille]

Since this topic is on the proverbial "2 lungs", it made me think of a verse in Luke 16 concerning the "us vs them"

I brought it up on this rather "heated" thread between the EO's/Protestants and the RCC church for those here interested
[My bro OthodoxyUSA just bowed out of it]

Regarding our differences... I do not think there is an "us vs them" case. The passage you are referencing in Luke 16.26 is in regards to the Rich Man and Lazarus. The EO as well as the RCC believe that the Sacred Tradition we hold is complete and full. All others (Protestants--which hold a basic/fundamental life in Christ) are not living to their full potential. I believe Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" lays out the understanding a little bit if you want a further reading on "ecumenism" from a Catholic perspective. Ut unum sint - Ioannes Paulus PP. II - Encyclical Letter (1995.05.25)

Since your identification as a "Christian seeker," I do not think it necessary to seek on the outside of any tradition. I hope you are attending a Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox church and living your life to the fullest in where all three find agreement. I would recommend you reading "Mere Christianity" by Clive Staples Lewis. I think most people of all Christian faiths would regard his layman understanding as being very practical and sensible. His book has been foundational for me when I went through the worst doubts in my life in regards to leaving Christianity in favor of secularism and in some sense Buddhism. I should hope people like Michael would not consider me outside Christ; albeit, I have had one Church of Christ friend said I wasn't even a Christian because I was baptized at age nine (something outside his idea of "age of accountability").

 

[St. Columcille]

I am done with this conversation. There is no use talking to those who talk so loudly and enjoy hearing their own voices so much that they don't hear what is being told to them.

Peace be with you Michael. I am glad you are a wonderful iconographer and Eastern Orthodox Christian.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Peace be with you Michael. I am glad you are a wonderful iconographer and Eastern Orthodox Christian.

c'mon now, no need for that

 

[Son of Israel]

It appears that neither chemo nor radiation will help here.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Question on "2 Lungs" of the Church

It appears that neither chemo nor radiation will help here.

I feel that way about the GT and OBOB boards a lot of times

http://www.christianforums.com/t7506961/#post55912922

http://www.christianforums.com/t7365567-12/#post51713514
Catholic vs Orthodoxy

 

[Macarius]

Exactly what did Pope Leo IX teach in his writings?

I am trying to look at some primary stuff that Leo actually wrote that was heretical. I am thinking the Patriarch Celularias was acting on emotional impulse, but that is just my perception. I should like to see specifics addressed.

The creed used at the time by the Clunaic reformers (and Leo was a Cluny monk before becoming a Pope) was the creed with the filioque - as it was in the vast majority of the former territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The popes had adopted this at a corronation ceremony earlier in the 11th c. and had continued using it into the subsequent decades.

For evidence that this was at the heart of the issue, take a look at Cardinal Humbert's reasons for rejecting the East. He accuses us of REMOVING the filioque from our creed (meaning that, for him, use of the filioque was normative).

Humbert's excommunication was upheld by Leo's successor, and there is little doubt that the West was using the filioque authoritatively at the time.

This goes directly against the decrees of the 9th c. councils surrounding the 'Photian' schism (which I blame far more on the Pope of that time than on Photius), where, at the resolution, there was a large council (oft called the 8th ec. council for the East, though unofficially as there's never been a 9th ec. council to affirm it as such), which was upheld by the Popes in the 9th and 10th c., that the filioque was forbidden from the creed.

The two major councils which denied the filioque (the second upheld by the papacy for nearly 200 years) were rejected in the 11th c. by the Papal Reform Movement (Gregorian Reforms), and the miniature (100 bishop) anti-Photian council suddenly became the 8th ec. council in the West.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

As to the OP...

We can't have it both ways.

The Church is Orthodox period.

Pope John Paul II appologized for many wrongs... too numberous to count. The Church of Rome entered into a state of penance, and that was good.

If the Church of Rome wants to regroup and join in true Orthodox worship and practices (read: serving The Divine Liturgy)... I'm all for it... however, be aware at the same time that a Church serving penance cannont lead.

There is ONE holy catholic and Apostolic Church. (The body of all the united Orthodox Churches)

Rome, having taken the word 'catholic' and using it as a proper noun identifies itself as THE 'whole' Church. A misuse of the meaning of the word catholic, for "being concerned with the mind of the whole" consists of the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch and all the east as well.

Rome should step away from the use of the word catholic as a proper noun and show herself to be a willing citizen of the one holy catholic and Apostolic Church, dropping this front that she alone is The Church.

There is one Christ, there is one bride.

Forgive me...

 

[Macarius]

Thread zombification.... 25% complete....