Nicene Creed

[Oblio]

I think you meant to say it diminishes the relationship of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity

Thanks John

 

[prodromos]

Thanks John

Anytime . I've had my fair share of moments

 

[Oblio]

Oblio, what's the name of your cat? I may vote for him/her as President. You could be First Father!

It's Moses & Anonykat's cat, IIRC his name is Mouse. Join the catniproots campain

 

[SolomonVII]

Would you like to look at that sentence closer? Please do not quote me out of context like this again. For one its rude and for two, its prohibited in CF rules.

[/font][/color][/color]

Then why are you quoting me before the text in red? What does what I have to say have to do with your rebuttal against an entirely different person?



It is because only an Ecumenical Council could change the Creed.

My apologies PV. Rest assured I will never quote you again.

 

[djns9437]

If the text you quoted is indicative of the quality and scholarship of the rest of the book, I don't think I will bother reading it. There are more than a couple of factual errors in that excerpt alone.

John.

Let me give you just a bit more.
The schism didn't end immediately.But before the close of the ninth century,Rome and Constantinople were restored to communion until the near final break in 1054.
******* edit****For in the orthodox Chatolic West the lineaments of a new geopolitical,cultural,and religious entity were taking shape.It would be called "Christendom."


Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"

2) You will not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This will include any new user with less than 50 posts starting a "discretional" topic - i.e. a topic not suitable for children. This will also include posts that put down Christianity in generalor any posts considered as blasphemy by staff (this is a CHRISTIAN FORUMS site), or posts that put down another Christian group or denomination. This includes links to websites in profiles and signatures. This will include members entering inaccurate personal details in their profile in order to gain access to restricted forums. You will not post new threads for the sole purpose of soliciting requests for prophecies.

 

[djns9437]

Good heavens, the National Enquirer of history books! I'm thinking we'll see Connie Selleca when the Lifetime Network makes this into the inevitable movie.

Pardon the pun, but this is a crock.

James

Beware of Greeks accepting gifts!

 

[djns9437]

Good heavens, the National Enquirer of history books! I'm thinking we'll see Connie Selleca when the Lifetime Network makes this into the inevitable movie.

Pardon the pun, but this is a crock.

James

The Catholic Encyclopedia bare's witness to the same truth about Photius.And the Eastern schism.

 

[prodromos]

The Catholic Encyclopedia bare's witness to the same truth about Photius.And the Eastern schism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is quite out of date and merely repeats the errors of Catholic scholars who only read sources that were hostile towards Photius. Dvornik does not make the mistake of simply regurgitating the one sided work of his predecessors, but goes back to primary sources on both sides, as a historian should.

Have a look at Dave Armstrongs list of books for Catholic Apologetics and History
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ57.HTM

Noteably absent are both the Catholic Encyclopedia and Crockers' "TRIUMPH".

John.

 

[prodromos]

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica

Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (1948, reprinted 1970), supersedes the older view of the contribution of Photius to the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches that is summarized by J. Ruinaut in Le Schisme de Photius (1910); and by Louis Bréhier, “The Greek Church: Its Relations with the West up to 1054” and “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,”

 

[BAChristian]

Ya know what I find interesting? One group says, "That book is a crock!!", because it doesn't fit their view on their faith because what if, I mean, just what if, **GASP**, they might be wrong. Then the next group says, "Oh no, your book is a crock!", because it doesn't fit their view on their faith because what if, I mean, just what if, **GASP**, they might be wrong.

So who's right? Well, I am, of course!!

 

[SolomonVII]

Ya know what I find interesting? One group says, "That book is a crock!!", because it doesn't fit their view on their faith because what if, I mean, just what if, **GASP**, they might be wrong. Then the next group says, "Oh no, your book is a crock!", because it doesn't fit their view on their faith because what if, I mean, just what if, **GASP**, they might be wrong.

So who's right? Well, I am, of course!!

When history is does not look at the facts dispassionately, it becomes mere propoganda.
The one basic rule for looking at history, is that no one or no one side can be assumed to be innocent. When the version of events is presented where all the innocent victims are from your particular grouping, and all the tyrants belong to the other side, rest assured that you are no longer engaging in history, but merely in denominational apologetics.

Politics are inherent to human affairs, and engaging in politics was essential for both Roman pope and Byzantine coaltion of emperor and patriarch. This is a very intuitively safe premise to start from.

Before beginning a study of the church history in regards to the filioque clause, it is also a worthwhile venture to explore one;s own motivations for doing so. Are our interests merely academic, are we motivated in justifying the dogma of our own particular branch of the church, or is our primary motivation to build bridges across the schism that divides us through a greater understanding of the past?

In this respect, my personal motivation would be to build bridges, although I am quite skeptical that this is really possible, save for the grace of a few more centuries. By that time though, will anybody still think that such Christianity, fragmented as it is , is anything still worth believing in?

 

[Oblio]

By that time though, will anybody still think that such Christianity, fragmented as it is , is anything still worth believing in?

Certainly those that wrote the original Creed will still think so.

 

[SolomonVII]

Certainly those that wrote the original Creed will still think so.

They've been dead for a over millenia. The politics and heresies that led to the creed's adoption in the first place are pretty much history as well.

 

[SolomonVII]

Lack of change is not always an indication of absolute Truth, but can just as easily be perceived as stagnation. Even Holy Tradition needs to be capable of growing with the revelations of time and history, and to meet the challenges of today. Otherwise faith becomes essentially moribund and mainly based in a nostalgia for the past.
On the other hand, without tradition, faith loses is roots and will only drift aimlessly with according to the current trends.


8

 

[Oblio]

They've been dead for a over millenia. The politics and heresies that led to the creed's adoption in the first place are pretty much history as well.

Ya think ? You haven't traveled around CF much then. I and many other EO and RC have battled ancient heresies that have been reborn and find audience here.

 

[Oblio]

Even Holy Tradition needs to be capable of growing with the revelations of time and history, and to meet the challenges of today. Otherwise faith becomes essentially moribund and mainly based in a nostalgia for the past.

You base this on ...

 

[Oblio]

They've been dead for a over millenia.

Their spiritual children are alive and well today.

 

[SolomonVII]

Ya think ? You haven't traveled around CF much then. I and many other EO and RC have battled ancient heresies that have been reborn and find audience here.

As per post 2, which no one EO has yet refuted, RC would be one of the ancient heresies due to its inclusion of the filioque clause.
In comparison, Arians are very much yesterday's news.


7

 

[SolomonVII]

You base this on ...

mainly my opinion since scriptural support for the filioque clause has so far gone unanswered.

6

 

[SolomonVII]

Their spiritual children are alive and well today.

Writers of creeds were looking to their creeds to heal divisions, not create them.

5