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.
I am not sure I understand what the point you are making is. When you suggest that communion with Rome is a test of catholicity, it seems to fail unless you are arguing to a foregone conclusion. Given that the Ancient See wrought change to the Creed in 1014, one might well see that Rome was not in communion with the Orthodox, rather than the other way around.This is a point in dispute since the Oriental Orthodox schism, reiterated after the Orthodox schism, and reiterated again with the Protestant schism - and before someone objects to the use of the word schism in relation to Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism I want to point out that history uses terms such as "great schism" and "protestant revolt" so I am using schism as a marker for a period when one church splits with another or when a group of churches splits with one other.
In 397 AD all of the churches were in communion with Rome, after the fifth century AD the Oriental Orthodox were no longer in communion with Rome, and after the eleventh century the Orthodox were no longer in communion with Rome, and after the sixteenth century the churches of Protestantism were no longer in communion with Rome.
Every church was in communion with all the others because they were the Catholic Church. When schism broke communion between churches it means that at least one party to the schism was no longer part of the Catholic church (for the case sensitive among readers you may treat Catholic as catholic if it makes you happier). As time went by the schisms multiplied and so did the reasons for schism and so did the errors that are at the root of schism.I am not sure I understand what the point you are making is. When you suggest that communion with Rome is a test of catholicity, it seems to fail unless you are arguing to a foregone conclusion. Given that the Ancient See wrought change to the Creed in 1014, one might well see that Rome was not in communion with the Orthodox, rather than the other way around.
That only makes sense if you treat communion as substantive rather than highly desirable, and even then it is still based on the elevation of Rome to the Centre of the known world.Every church was in communion with all the others because they were the Catholic Church. When schism broke communion between churches it means that at least one party to the schism was no longer part of the Catholic church (for the case sensitive among readers you may treat Catholic as catholic if it makes you happier). As time went by the schisms multiplied and so did the reasons for schism and so did the errors that are at the root of schism.
This of course is not a view that I am likely to accept. Firstly, the Church formed the Creed with the assent of the Patriarchs, including Rome. The Creed was the product of the Conciliar Church. The Roman Liturgy when celebrated in Greek does not contain the filioque as in Greek it is generally regarded as in direct opposition to the opening part of the Creed. The filioque does not teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, In Greek this is the difference between kia and dia. Please do not tell me that the Filioque was introduced at the Third Synod of Toledo in 589 because it wasn't.With regard to the creed, the Catholic Church wrote it, approved it, and has the continuing right to modify it as the times require. Some in the east object to the filioque, okay, what's so bad about it? It does not, as some suggest, compromise the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it is understood in the Catholic Church to teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The filioque was introduced to dispel a heresy that had arisen in Spain (I think, I haven't verified the country of origin).
May God
May God Bless You. I downloaded the KJVA bible app with 84 books and the lost books app! I am seeking the Truth! The more you read the more wisdom of God you get
Didn't Jerome use the Hexapla? The Catholic Encyclopedia (original) says this in its article on the Hexapla:
"The Hexaplar text also influenced St. Jerome very strongly in his first two translations of the Psalter into Latin, the Psalterium Romanum and (particularly) the Gallicanum. Saint Jerome also followed the Hexaplar text, for which he had a very high regard, as the basis of his translations, no longer extant, of other books. The same influence is further seen in the Coptic (Sahidic), the Arabic, and the Armenian versions. If the original Septuagint text be taken as the standard, it is unquestionable that Origen's influence, both upon the Septuagint and its daughter versions, ultimately availed, through the negligence of copyists, to remove them further from the pristine purity of the Biblical text; but by all those who regard the Hexaplar text, by reason of its insertions and corrections from the textus receptus, as nearer to the original Hebrew than is the Septuagint, his influence must be judged to have worked, on the whole, for the spread of a truer text. The Hexaplar manuscript was kept at Cæsarea in Palestine, where it was consulted by Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome; it disappeared from sight shortly after the beginning of the seventh century."
See: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hexapla
From the time of Christ's earthly sojourn until the sack of Rome in the fifth century Rome was the centre of the Roman empire.That only makes sense if you treat communion as substantive rather than highly desirable, and even then it is still based on the elevation of Rome to the Centre of the known world.
From the time of Christ's earthly sojourn until the sack of Rome in the fifth century Rome was the centre of the Roman empire.
I read the rest of your post but decided I didn't want to debate what you'd be willing to accept because that is a matter for you and not up for debate. The expressed opinion about the politics of the day and the piety (or lack of it) is not for me to dispute, let the historians deal with it.
from 330 AD Nova Romanum, aka Constantinople was the Capital of the Roman Empire.From the time of Christ's earthly sojourn until the sack of Rome in the fifth century Rome was the centre of the Roman empire.
That is true but it took quite some time for the city to grow and the population to grow; I cannot quibble about it though, after Constantine upgraded Byzantium power and politics progressively moved away from Rome and towards Constantinople. Nevertheless, when Christ and the apostles were still living on earth Rome was the centre of the empire.from 330 AD Nova Romanum, aka Constantinople was the Capital of the Roman Empire.
That isn't true. Protestantism is not the first heresy (per history) in the Church. There where schismatics and heretics throughout the history of the Church, and the Fathers of the Church even as early as 2nd Century speaks of the true Church as the Catholic Church versus whatever heresy or schism they were debating against.No. It looks like you didn't. There were western and eastern Christians, Capital C Catholic can only mean lowercase c catholic until you start talking about Protestants.
Considering that the schism was entirely political and had nothing to do with doctrine, the Creed is not a factor.I am not sure I understand what the point you are making is. When you suggest that communion with Rome is a test of catholicity, it seems to fail unless you are arguing to a foregone conclusion. Given that the Ancient See wrought change to the Creed in 1014, one might well see that Rome was not in communion with the Orthodox, rather than the other way around.
Considering that the schism was entirely political and had nothing to do with doctrine, the Creed is not a factor.
Much happened after 1054 AD including the council of Florence. It is a pity that memory of the past troubles the present on this matter which was addressed so long ago.Uh, yes the filioque was a major reason for the Great Schism, especially when it came to Normans forcing Greek churches in southern Italy and Sicily to follow Latin practices.
I can't help but laugh at "robber council"As the sole opposition to the Robber Council of Florence, St. Mark stated, "There can be no compromise in matters of the Orthodox Faith.”
The filioque was not the reason for the Schism, but was used as a justification of it; as was the illegalization of the Roman Rite in the city of Constantinople. The Greeks knew about the filioque quite some time and never made it an issue.Uh, yes the filioque was a major reason for the Great Schism, especially when it came to Normans forcing Greek churches in southern Italy and Sicily to follow Latin practices.
I can't help but laugh at "robber council"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?