The Filioque

[ArmyMatt]

I have seen no rational explanetion at all. If such theological erros did not exclude The West Father from Heaven, then why does Eastern Orthodoxy exclude Catholics from Communion and Concelebration?

they are ecluded because we are not in communion. we are not of one mind and therefore should not be allowing others to partake of the sacramental life of a Church they think is wrong. those fathers from Toledo never left the One Church (since it was one at that time), therefore from our POV, they are Orthodox, even if they had some theological errors.

since, from our POV, Rome left the One Church, she is no longer in communion and therefore cannot take communion in an Orthodox Church. one can only take communion with one who he is in communion with. Rome and the East are not. now, why Rome allows it I have no idea, but they should not, because we are not One Church.

 

[truefiction1]

Yes, but for that reason radicalism was never the rule in the church of the first 1054 years of history in this matter.



No body says that we understand but that we receive from the appostles as revealed, Bible in hand and by the writings of the fathers , synods and councils, who transmited us the faith. We are not innovating in faith we are recognizing and defending what we received. And tha church of Spain had had councils no more that 16 years after the council of Constantinople I, in which it is evident that christian believed since then in the procesion of the Holy Spirit from The Father and the Son. I brought the proves of it. And I also brought the proves that in the orthodox church there is no one council anathemazing Saint Isidore and Saint Leandrus by heading the councis of Toledo which ratified the filioque.



No, Spanish received the faith before Augustine, and even saint Ambrose who converted Saint Augustine hada already stated the procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.



He also stated that he can blow the Holy Spirit:

John 20, 23​

{20:22} When he had said this, he breathed on them. And he​

said to them: “Receive the Holy Spirit.

Saint Ambrose of Milan explains the verse (Concerning Repentance, Capter 2, Paragraph 8)
CHURCH FATHERS: Concerning Repentance, Book I (Ambrose)

8. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?

San Ambrose clearly explains that The Lord Jesus gave the apostles the Holy Spirit, by blowing to them as the verse quoted say, in orther for them to be able to Forgive sins.

Also the Appstle Saint John show in the apocalipse that the Holy Spirit come from the Thorne of God and the Lamb of God.

Apocalipse 22, 1​

{22:1} And he showed me the river of the
water of life, shining like crystal, proceeding from the throne​

of God and of the Lamb.

On this quote Saint Ambrose of Milan says:

St. Ambrose On the Holy Spirit, Book III, Chapter 20 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34023.htm)

The river flowing from the Throne of God is a figure of the Holy Spirit, but by the waters spoken of by David the powers of heaven are intended. The kingdom of God is the work of the Spirit; and it is no matter for wonder if He reigns in this together with the Son, since St. Paul promises that we too shall reign with the Son.

153. And this, again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist John to this purport: And He showed me a river of living water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side, was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of all nations. Revelation 22:1-2

154. This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. John 7:37-38 Therefore the river is the Spirit.

155. This, then, is in the throne of God, for the water washes not the throne of God. Then, whatever you may understand by that water, David said not that it was above the throne of God, but above the heavens, for it is written: Let the waters which are above the heavens praise the Name of the Lord. Let them praise, he says, not let it praise. For if he had intended us to understand the element of water, he would certainly have said, Let it praise, but by using the plural he intended the Powers to be understood.

156. And what wonder is it if the Holy Spirit is in the throne of God, since the kingdom of God itself is the work of the Holy Spirit, as it is written: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Romans 14:17 And when the Saviour Himself says, Every kingdom divided against itself shall be destroyed, Matthew 12:25 by adding afterwards, But if I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils, without doubt the kingdom of God has come upon you, Matthew 12:27 He shows that the kingdom of God is held undivided by Himself and by the Spirit.

157. But what is more foolish than for any one to deny that the Holy Spirit reigns together with Christ when the Apostle says that even we shall reign together with Christ in the kingdom of Christ: If we are dead with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with Him. 2 Timothy 2:11-12 But we by adoption, He by power; we by grace, He by nature.

158. The Holy Spirit, therefore, shares in the kingdom with the Father and the Son, and He is of one nature with Them, of one Lordship, and also of one power.



We leave it at the point in which God revealed to us. We are not saying that the holy spirit comes from the Father and the Son only for moking on greeks, We deffend the tradition that was given by the fathers since the old times.



The Greek Fathers knew of the Council of Toledo 1st because it was hold only 16 years after Constantinople 1st. And no one of the greek fathers of the first council of Constantinople ever said that such teaching was heretic. And even more, such teaching was ratified in the third and the fourth councils of Toledo. And the Schism came more than 645 year after.



they never rejected The teachings of Toledo.



No, that is why we can not reject Filioque, because Constantinople Fathers never rejected Toledo formula, and never made an immediate council to reject it.



very Kind of You.



Like contraception in the Orthodox?



Filioque is not an innovation, Is pure revelation.



Well

I have shown that Eastern Orthodoxy has no historical argument to say that Filioque is the cause of schism, Because for 654 years The Teaching of the Church of Spain which is in line with the teaching of the Scriptures, and the interpretations of the Fathers, Western and Eastern, Was always accepted by the Greeks of old (Pre-phosius and pre-schism)

It was not until Phosius that Bizantine politics demanded a way to make divisions of the church of Constantinople and the Church of Rome. Primarily because Charlemagne had assembled a united Western Roman Empire, And The emperor of Constantinople felt betrayed by the Pope of Rome when the pope of Rome Crowned Charlemagne as emperor, And Phosius took as banner the filioque in the year 891. After many year of dialogue communion remained.


The reasons of divisions between Catholics and Orthodox are away from Filioque. And I would say it is more grave The laxity in the doctrines of contraception among Orthodox which harms the gospel, than the filioque which was never rejected by the fathers of the council of Constantinople who knew of Toledo.

"Oikonomia" references. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not from the Father and the Son.

 

[prodromos]

Can you show to us in the Catechism of the catholic Church where can we find that the Pope is the Universal Bishop? And it has to be clearly stated. Otherwise, the lack of piety from you is also salted with lies.

Here are statements from some of your councils (none of which are accepted by the Orthodox Church, in case you were wondering).

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.
Florence 1439​

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Vatican I 1869-1870​

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.
Vatican II 1964​

 

[prodromos]

And please bring those Councils I requested you to verify that filioque "heresy" was rejected in formal way since the beggining, in the early 400's, and it has to have written the word Toledo as rejecting such "heretic" councils. At least give us one.

The filioque heresy was formally rejected the moment it appeared in the East. Prior to that there was no knowledge in the East that it was being taught in the West. The declarations of the Council of Toledo were never sent to any other patriarchate than Rome.

 

[prodromos]

Spanish Councils where not of Philosophers, you are totally mistaken, I have proven 654 years of communion of spanish church and greek church that is enough to prove the fake of your argument.

You have demonstrated that there was not a lot of communication between East and West. Greek clergy generally did not read or speak Latin and Latin clergy generally did not read or speak Greek. Since the filioque was unheard of until it was introduced in the Bulgarian Church (which had been established by the missionary efforts of the Constantinople Patriarchate), the churches in the East had no reason to condemn that which was unknown in their jurisdictions.

Once it became known it was soundly condemned.

 

[prodromos]

In 1054 the cause of Excomunication was the leavened bread, which was accepted by the church as an exception, but in the byzantine Empire it was and remains as the rule with total lack of Apostolicity.

Leavened bread was used exclusively in Rome until between the 8th and 10th century.

 

[GregConstantine]

I know this tread is about the Filioque, but, the topic of leaven vs unleaven bread came up and I found some good references that support the fact that Rome used leaven bread up until about the 8th century, switching over to unleaven bread due to influences from the North.

Catholic scholars say that the Church of Rome used leavened bread for the first 800 and more years. The change to unleavened bread took place towards the end of the first millennium.

Fr. Joseph Jungman -- in his book The Mass of the Roman Rite -- states that:
"In the West, various ordinances appeared from the ninth century on, all demanding the exclusive use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. A growing solicitude for the Blessed Sacrament and a desire to employ only the best and whitest bread, along with various scriptural considerations -- all favored this development.
"Still, the new custom did not come into exclusive vogue until the middle of the eleventh century. Particularly in Rome it was not universally accepted till after the general infiltration of various usages from the North" [Joseph Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, pages 33-34]
Fr. Jungman goes on to say that, ". . . the opinion put forward by J. Mabillon, Dissertatio de pane eucharistia, in his answer to the Jesuit J. Sirmond, Disquisitio de azymo, namely, that in the West it was always the practice to use only unleavened bread, is no longer tenable" [Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite, volume II, page 33]
"Now, the fact that the West changed its practice and began using unleavened bread in the 8th and 9th century -- instead of the traditional leavened bread -- is confirmed by the research of Fr. William O'Shea, who noted that along with various other innovative practices from Northern Europe, the use of unleavened bread began to infiltrate into the Roman liturgy at the end of the first millennium, because as he put it, "Another change introduced into the Roman Rite in France and Germany at the time [i.e., 8th - 9th century] was the use of unleavened bread and of thin white wafers or hosts instead of the loaves of leavened bread used hitherto" [Fr. William O'Shea, The Worship of the Church, page 128].
"Moreover, this change in Western liturgical practice was also noted by Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus in his book, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, because as he said: "The Eucharistic bread has been unleavened in the Latin rite since the 8th century -- that is, it is prepared simply from flour and water, without the addition of leaven or yeast. . . . in the first millennium of the Church's history, both in East and West, the bread normally used for the Eucharist was ordinary 'daily bread,' that is, leavened bread, and the Eastern Church uses it still today; for the most part, they strictly forbid the use of unleavened bread. The Latin Church, by contrast, has not considered this question very important." [Dr. Johannes H. Emminghaus, The Eucharist: Essence, Form, Celebration, page 162]
"Thus, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the use of leavened bread by the Eastern Churches represents the ancient practice of the undivided Church, while the use of unleavened bread by the Western Church was an innovation introduced near the end of the first millennium."

 

[GregConstantine]

And from the Baltimore Catechism regarding the papacy:

"
148. Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone?

Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Here are statements from some of your councils (none of which are accepted by the Orthodox Church, in case you were wondering).

We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.
Florence 1439
​

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Vatican I 1869-1870
​

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff.
Vatican II 1964
​

Primacy of jurisdiction means that he is the Universal Bishop?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

And from the Baltimore Catechism regarding the papacy:

"
148. Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone?

Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.

Ok We are taking themes here and there Why don't we just open a new thread for each?

I can tell you what was the understanding of Saint John Chrysostom about the office of Saint Peter and then you will see the Really orthodoxy of the Catholic Church and the heretic understandig of the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

The filioque heresy was formally rejected the moment it appeared in the East. Prior to that there was no knowledge in the East that it was being taught in the West. The declarations of the Council of Toledo were never sent to any other patriarchate than Rome.

So, Do the Saints of the church of Spain were also rejected with their heresy? NO, So stop justifying contradictions If the Filioque never was a excommunicating heresy as you pretend when did the innovation of the Procesion of the Holy Spirit from the Father ALONE came to exist? until Phosius in the 890's

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Because individual errors by individual people is not the problem. There were eastern fathers with errors as well. The problem that caused Rome to go into schism was her arrogance and lust for power, lording herself over more and more churches, and dragging them into her error. There could be no reconcilliation so long as Rome refused to repent of exalting herself over the entire church.

Right you reached the Real Stone of discordance, Greeks wanted supremacy and Rome was always the firsts. The Greeks even called Constantinople, New Rome and the russians say they are third Rome. You see, it is politics.

Papism - not the filioque or purgatory or indulgences or bread - is what caused Rome's schism.

Fully Agree.


Now the case is to find who is right and who is wrong.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

You have demonstrated that there was not a lot of communication between East and West. Greek clergy generally did not read or speak Latin and Latin clergy generally did not read or speak Greek. Since the filioque was unheard of until it was introduced in the Bulgarian Church (which had been established by the missionary efforts of the Constantinople Patriarchate), the churches in the East had no reason to condemn that which was unknown in their jurisdictions.

Once it became known it was soundly condemned.

I am sorry but you are avoiding that Even Saint John Chrysostom Doubted when explaining the Gospel og John verse 20,22. He expresed that the understanding was under debate even in his time by saying "some say"

Saint Jonh Chrysostom (Homily 86 on the gospel of John; John 20, 22 -23)

He breathed on them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.

As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ invests them with the same power. But how says He, If I go not away, He will not come John 16:7, and yet gives them the Spirit? Some say that He gave not the Spirit, but rendered them fit to receive It, ...

So it is evident that he knew that Western Fathers and even some eastern fathers taught different, if you read him accurately he is not saying "We say" but "Some say", he is not even subscribing himself. but I will post again what saint Ambrose of Milan, who lived the same years that Sain John Chrysostom, said about this Verse:

Saint Ambrose of Milan explains the verse (Concerning Repentance, Capter 2, Paragraph 8)
CHURCH FATHERS: Concerning Repentance, Book I (Ambrose)

8. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained. John 20:22-23 So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?

Saint Ambrose of Milan, On The Holy Spirit Book 1 Chapter 4 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm

The Holy Spirit is one and the same Who spoke in the prophets and apostles, Who is the Spirit of God and of Christ; Whom, further, Scripture designates the Paraclete, and the Spirit of life and truth.
55. But no one will doubt that the Spirit is one, although very many have doubted whether God be one. For many heretics have said that the God of the Old Testament is one, and the God of the New Testament is another. But as the Father is one Who both spoke of old, as we read, to the fathers by the prophets, and to us in the last days by His Son; Hebrews 1:1-2 and as the Son is one, Who according to the tenour of the Old Testament was offended by Adam, Genesis 3:17 seen by Abraham, Genesis 18:22-23 worshipped by Jacob; Genesis 28:17 so, too, the Holy Spirit is one, who energized in the prophets, 2 Peter 1:21 was breathed upon the apostles, John 20:22 and was joined to the Father and the Son in the sacrament of baptism. Matthew 28:19 For David says of Him: And take not Your Holy Spirit from me. And in another place he said of Him: Whither shall I go from Your Spirit?

So the procedence of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was in a debate in the times of the Fathers in the time of the council of Constantinople and though they took different positions they never broke communion.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

And from the Baltimore Catechism regarding the papacy:

"
148. Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone?

Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.

Ok Lets open a New thread...

 

[GregConstantine]

No we don't need to open a new tread because even though unleavened bread and papal universal jurisdiction are not the Filioque, they are all related in that all are innovations (proven to you by direct quotes, from even Catholic scholars) created by Rome which set her on a path to schism from the rest of the Church.

About Papal Supremacy:
Yes, it means the pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. This is the clear, unambiguous teaching of the Roman Church. I was raised Catholic, and this is what I was taught, as well as my parents on both sides of my family (Italian and Irish) and their grandparents, etc.

About the Filioque:
It will not help to quote from the Fathers about the Son sending forth the Spirit, or the Spirit proceding from the Father through the Spirit. We do not deny this. We do deny that the procession of the spirit proceeds eternally from both the Father and the Son. To say "through the Son" is not a problem for us. This was hashed out in earlier comments on this tread in response mostly to Romanrite.

Don't take offense at this Alonso, but you need to know your own Catholic Faith and what it teaches better. Remember, my comment is coming from me who was raised Roman Catholic.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

No we don't need to open a new tread because even though unleavened bread and papal universal jurisdiction are not the Filioque, they are all related in that all are innovations (proven to you by direct quotes, from even Catholic scholars) created by Rome which set her on a path to schism from the rest of the Church.

Ok, From the Catholic Enciclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm

St. Thomas (IV, Dist. xi, qu. 3) holds that, in the beginning, both in the East and West unleavened bread was used; that when the sect of the Ebionites arose, who wished that the Mosaic Law should be obligatory on all converts, leavened bread was used, and when this heresy ceased the Latins used again unleavened bread, but the Greeks retained the use of leavened bread.

About Papal Supremacy:
Yes, it means the pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. This is the clear, unambiguous teaching of the Roman Church. I was raised Catholic, and this is what I was taught, as well as my parents on both sides of my family (Italian and Irish) and their grandparents, etc.

Ok From Saitn John Chrysostom about Saint Peter:
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 88 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

John 21:15

So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.

1. There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to show us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good will from on high, is tender care for our neighbor. Which therefore Christ requires of Peter. For when their eating was ended, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me more than these? He says unto Him, Yea, Lord, You know that I love You.
He says unto him, Feed My sheep.

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

When then having been asked once and again, he called Him to witness who knows the secrets of the heart, and then was asked even a third time, he was troubled, fearing a repetition of what had happened before, (for then, having been strong in assertion, he was afterwards convicted,) and therefore he again betakes himself to Him. For the saying,...

Ok if you, or any of your clergy teaches different that Saint John Chrysostom, that one can not be called orthodox to the faith of the fathers and the apostles. You are not refuting me as if I were innovating or as if the "Chief authority of the Church" was a position invented by Catholicism, Even the most brilliant Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint John Chrysostom, Understood very well this Role of Primacy of the Apostle Peter.

All the Popes preschism understood such primacy as well as the Council fathers.

About the Filioque:

It will not help to quote from the Fathers about the Son sending forth the Spirit, or the Spirit proceding from the Father through the Spirit. We do not deny this. We do deny that the procession of the spirit proceeds eternally from both the Father and the Son. To say "through the Son" is not a problem for us. This was hashed out in earlier comments on this tread in response mostly to Romanrite.

Are you saying that the Son BEGAN to send the Holy Spirit? Are You saying that the Son is not Eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit? Are You saying that the Son changed his economy in the Holy Trinity?

Those grave conclusions are gotten from your position, we accept your understanding but we do not deny that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son as from one principle.

Don't take offense at this Alonso, but you need to know your own Catholic Faith and what it teaches better. Remember, my comment is coming from me who was raised Roman Catholic.

I was raised Catholic too, what is your advantage in that?

 

[Lukaris]

In 1054, Rome "excommunicated" the Orthodox Church in its own cathedral & claimed that we "removed" the filioque from the creed (!) Prior to this, 10th c., Patriarch Photius rebuked a Bulgarian ruler who, playing politics between Rome & Constantinople, wanted his own patriarch & Pr. Photius would not grant it. The Bulgarian khan then tried to forcibly convert the Bulgarian people to Roman authority evicting Orthodox clerics in the process. In 1204 Constantinople was sacked by "crusaders" ....


None of the earlier western fathers called for our excommunication over this issue, why should we call for theirs?

I proper context, I am not posting any polemic against the RCC, I admire the Pope & the RCC this is just historical background to our separation & not against average Catholic laity or overall integrity of the RCC.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Alonso, none of them speak about St Peter the way that Rome sees him now. and nothing in that quote says any unique grace is passed solely to the Bishop of Rome. we agree that St Peter had a headship, but to quote St Augustine of Hippo, it was a headship within the Apostles, not above them.

your evidence is basically just you assuming you are right, and then repeatedly calling us heretics over and over again as if that will work.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

In 1054, Rome "excommunicated" the Orthodox Church in its own cathedral & claimed that we "removed" the filioque from the creed (!) Prior to this, 10th c., Patriarch Photius rebuked a Bulgarian ruler who, playing politics between Rome & Constantinople, wanted his own patriarch & Pr. Photius would not grant it. The Bulgarian khan then tried to forcibly convert the Bulgarian people to Roman authority evicting Orthodox clerics in the process. In 1204 Constantinople was sacked by "crusaders" ....


None of the earlier western fathers called for our excommunication over this issue, why should we call for theirs?

I proper context, I am not posting any polemic against the RCC, I admire the Pope & the RCC this is just historical background to our separation & not against average Catholic laity or overall integrity of the RCC.

You bring more and more themes of discusion, let us finish the one of this thread and let us open new threads for each one of the themes you have as objections.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Alonso, none of them speak about St Peter the way that Rome sees him now. and nothing in that quote says any unique grace is passed solely to the Bishop of Rome. we agree that St Peter had a headship, but to quote St Augustine of Hippo, it was a headship within the Apostles, not above them.

your evidence is basically just you assuming you are right, and then repeatedly calling us heretics over and over again as if that will work.

Can you say that when saint John Chrysostom ( the first and most illustrious patriarch of Constantinople) writes "Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren", Such chief authority was not chief?

What about the next quote about Saint John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Saint Matthew:

Saint John Chrysostom on the Gospel of Saint Matthew Homily 54
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 54 on Matthew (Chrysostom)

And He said not, I will entreat the Father (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, I will give you. What dost Thou give? Tell me. The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. How then is it not His to give to sit on His right hand, and on His left, Matthew 20:23 when He says, I will give you?

Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as a brazen pillar, and as a wall; Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.


Also from Saint John Chrysostom: Homily 19 on the Gospel of Saint John
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240119.htm

But Peter makes no reply to these words; as yet he knew nothing clearly, but still was learning. And observe, that not even the prediction is fully set forth; for Jesus did not say, I will change your name to Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, but, You shall be called Cephas. The former speech would have expressed too great authority and power; for Christ does not immediately nor at first declare all His power, but speaks for a while in a humbler tone; and so, when He had given the proof of His Divinity, He puts it more authoritatively, saying, Blessed are you, Simon, because My Father has revealed it to you; and again, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church. Matthew 16:17-18 Him therefore He so named, and James and his brother He called sons of thunder. Mark 3:17 Why then does He this? To show that it was He who gave the old covenant, that it was He who altered names, who called Abram Abraham, and Sarai Sarah, and Jacob Israel. To many he assigned names even from their birth, as to Isaac, and Samson, and to those in Isaiah and Hosea Isaiah 8:3; Hosea 1:4-9; but to others He gave them after they had been named by their parents, as to those we have mentioned, and to Joshua the son of Nun. It was also a custom of the Ancients to give names from things, which in fact Leah also has done; and this takes place not without cause, but in order that men may have the appellation to remind them of the goodness of God, that a perpetual memory of the prophecy conveyed by the names may sound in the ears of those who receive it. Thus too He named John early, because they whose virtue was to shine forth from their early youth, from that time received their names; while to those who were to become great at a later period, the title also was given later.