• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

(Controversial; TAW only) Orthodox position on the first Assisi event of 1986?

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,429
21,121
Earth
✟1,689,425.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I said it was grasping at straws because it took a short unsourced internet post and used that as a foundation for a complex argument.

Although I don't have any substantial knowledge of the issue, I do understand that the question of whether Eastern Catholics need to adopt the filioque has been controversial. A big part of the debate concerns the manner in which the filioque is understood. Further, some Eastern Catholics do include it.

again, there should be no controversy. 2 Lyons condemns you if you don't use it. if this were the 1200s, then yes, the Eastern Rite would need to adopt it. today, you don't need to adopt it.

that's a pretty glaring contradiction.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,746
3,883
✟305,563.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
again, there should be no controversy. 2 Lyons condemns you if you don't use it. if this were the 1200s, then yes, the Eastern Rite would need to adopt it. today, you don't need to adopt it.

that's a pretty glaring contradiction.

What happens every time an Orthodox Christian comes to this forum and asks about, say, birth control? You tell them something like, "The Orthodox Church is generally opposed to birth control, but talk to your pastor." Perhaps there should be no controversy? No exceptions? Thank heaven for epikeia!
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,429
21,121
Earth
✟1,689,425.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What happens every time an Orthodox Christian comes to this forum and asks about, say, birth control? You tell them something like, "The Orthodox Church is generally opposed to birth control, but talk to your pastor." Perhaps there should be no controversy? No exceptions? Thank heaven for epikeia!

except we have no history of dogmatically endorsing birth control and then dogmatically condemning it.

not a good analogy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: prodromos
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,746
3,883
✟305,563.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
except we have no history of dogmatically endorsing birth control and then dogmatically condemning it.

not a good analogy.

So you see allowing Eastern Catholics to omit the filioque from the creed as dogmatic condemnation of the filioque?

I find this black-and-white mentality rather strange. Teachings and decisions of the Church are elevated to dogma on a whim when it suits an argument or is found to be convenient.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,429
21,121
Earth
✟1,689,425.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
So you see allowing Eastern Catholics to omit the filioque from the creed as dogmatic condemnation of the filioque?

I find this black-and-white mentality rather strange. Teachings and decisions of the Church are elevated to dogma on a whim when it suits an argument or is found to be convenient.

no, I am wondering why Rome would allow the Eastern Catholics to omit the Filioque, when Rome has a council that condemns those who omit the Filioque.

and no one did anything on a whim for convenience.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,746
3,883
✟305,563.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
no, I am wondering why Rome would allow the Eastern Catholics to omit the Filioque, when Rome has a council that condemns those who omit the Filioque.

My guess is that Rome does not see the two omissions as identical.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,429
21,121
Earth
✟1,689,425.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
My guess is that Rome does not see the two omissions as identical.

the council is pretty clear. everyone is condemned who doesn't use the Filioque. it doesn't make any distinction.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟279,420.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
He may have been a material heretic. I may be a material heretic. Formal heresy is really the key issue.
You completely missed my point - Pope John Paul II was rebuked by Ratzinger and by a significant portion of the Catholic Faithful about his syncretism, yet he continued to do so to his death, which includes the infamous Juan Diego Canonization Mass; I find it ridiculous to claim that he could not know that his practices were counter to what the Catholic Church always did in, and were innovative such that no Pope has ever done what he did in the history of the Catholic Church, or that he was mentally incapable of his acts;

Let's look at Eutyches. Now, Eutyches was a confused soul who was fighting against Nestorians using Cyril's "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" formula; however, it's very clear that what he was teaching was logically implying heresy and he misunderstood what "One Incarnate Nature" actually meant. He was ordered by Saint Flavian to confess a more Orthodox Confession, and he refused. During the Council of Ephesus 449, he allegedly gave an Orthodox confession, but after the council, he went straight back to teaching his heresy such that he would be anathematized by both the Chalcedonians and Oriental Orthodox Churches for heresy.

What, did he remain a material heretic? Did he not know what he was doing? No. He became a formal heretic because he was ordered by the Church to reject his heresy, and he continued in it to his grave.

How does Pope John Paul II, after receiving rebuking from much of the Catholic Faithful and the Prefect for the CDF, have an excuse of "not knowing better?" Eutyches may have actually thought that what he was doing was morally right. So do all the heretics. Yet he continued after being condemned by several councils because he was told by the Church to cut it out and he continued.

The information may come from his book Truth and Tolerance, but some information can be found in this article. If memory serves, after Ratzinger objected and abstained from the first Assisi event John Paul II, in consultation with Ratzinger, changed the nature of the communal prayer offered at the event.
The article doesn't say so, only that Pope Benedict had reservations and changed the subsequent event he himself (Benedict) hosted; when did Pope John Paul II change the event the second time around in 2002? According to Wikipedia, he still seemed to repeat the exact same thing, but Benedict was the one who removed the interdenominational prayer service.

Day of Prayer - Wikipedia

The Catholic understanding is that a Council is not autonomous apart from a pope, and that the canons of a council must be 'ratified' (in some sense) by the Pope. Martin V did not accept these decrees. For example:

This just flatly contradicts what you just said, as you claimed that all the Popes resigned so that the Council could move forward.

Did he accept the 4th Session, which says the same thing? And if it truly wasn't accepted, why is it still preserved? The Tome written at Chalcedon (as an alternative to Leo's Tome) wasn't accepted by the the Council and didn't make it the definition of Faith; yet we don't have that, because it wasn't a part of the Council.

It's the same apologetics argument with the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, which the Eastern Churches all accepted. The Pope didn't accept the 28th canon, therefore it never existed, even though it's still preserved in the East and still on New Advent.

That is an accurate depiction of the period, but those ideas were not incorporated into Church teaching, especially after the allowance of the historical sciences in the early 20th century.

Okay, sure. :sorry:

Francis criticizes traditionalist Catholics who 'safeguard the ashes' of the past
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟279,420.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Okay, sure.

Cool, so you must submit to Vatican II's decrees, which include such things like the Jews aren't anathematized; that Muslims worship the same God as the Christians; that the Catholic Church isn't the Body of Christ, but rather the Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church; that it is the unanimous believers of unbelievers alike that man is the summit of the universe; and that the Eastern Orthodox are so close in communion with Roman Catholicism that mutual intercommunion is permitted; and Ecumenism.

That's not to mention the various Encyclicals by Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis which all endorse the above views in ways that clearly aren't orthodox, such as Pope Benedict's statements stating that the Jews don't need to be converted or that one can find Salvation without Christ - kind of in contradiction to the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟279,420.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Zippy, when Saint Paisios was informed that the Pope wanted to visit Mount Athos, he refused, saying that the situation would be better helped with prayers. I think that I'm done, and I will follow through with Saint Paisios's logic.

And while you can feel free to response one last time so you get the last word, it's clear that you are set in your ways.

And if I've sinned against you in a way due to my frustration, I hope that God may forgive me. I tend to forget that people have free will and have to make their own decisions and face their own consequences. So forgive me on that part.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Not David
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,429
21,121
Earth
✟1,689,425.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
No, II Lyons didn't even require liturgical change, it just clarified the theology.

and that clarification is that if you don't use the Filioque, you are condemned.
 
Upvote 0