Good videos. But on this topic: I'm Melkite catholic and we don't have the filioque. But The reason it was added was to combat heresy. Either way we are not ex'd by the catholic church. God bless
TO believe in the truth of the Filioque is an obligation even for the melkites. You just dont have to recite it in the creed, but you have to believe in its truth.
@Montenero1439 There is no truth concerning the filioque addition. It is not in Scriptures and goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. "Through" the Son and "from" the Son have two entirely different theological connotations.
You are simply lying. Filioque is in scriptures Revelations 22:1 "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." The greek word for proceeding is the same that for John 15:26. No ocumenical council prohibited the Filioque. And no, the context shows that thru and from bear the same meaning:
""92. But the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, in all things hath Him both always and continually present. For the same Spirit even in Substance proceeds from Him. " St Gregory the Great; Morals 2:92 .
@Montenero1439 Let's not interpret the church Fathers to suite your position. St. Gregory states," the Spirit, even in SUBSTANCE, flows from the Son." He does not infer that the Spirit originates from the Son.
The filioque addition was never approved by an Ecumenical Council, the whole church., it was gradually accepted in the west. It is heretical and uncanonical.
If the flow in subtance it means it is talking about his being, so it is the origine of the Holy Spirit wich is in view. It is the same word than proceeds.
And this is not true, the Filioque was aproved at least at the Council of Florence :)
@Montenero1439 The verse from Revelations and John have nothing to do with the filioque. Like I stated it is not in Scriptures. The Third Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed, canon VII.
How can "through" and "from" be the same thing? The sun's rays are "from" the sun. They originate from the sun. The sun's rays pass "through" the glass. The rays DONOT originate from the glass.
You claim it has nothing to do but it is saying that the HS proceeds from both lol. And with the same greek word than in John 15:26. So you have to prove it has nothing to do with it, not only claim it.
The 3rd oecumenical councils forbids to change the creed if it contradicts it, not if it explains or completes the creed.
You example is refuted by the fathers, since st Gregory of Nyssa says the fire comes from the first torch(Father) to the 3rd(HS) thru a 2nd one(son).
St John of Damascus ""The Father is the root, the Son is the branch, the Spirit is the fruit." The fruits has not its origin in the branch? LOL. St. Gregory of Nyssa " It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one)" Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit 6.
@Montenero1439 The theology and teachings of the Trinity are based on John 15:26. "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father." It is "from the Father". The Holy Spirit originates from the Father. St. Gregory states "through" the Son ,not from the Son. You are confusing two different things.
@Montenero1439 Canon VII of the 3rd Ecumenical Council states," the Holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the Holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost at Nicaea." The filioque addition changed the Creed and is not canonically correct.
@Montenero1439 How can the Holy Spirit originate from both. The Father is the only source. Christ is born eternally from the Father. The Holy Spirit "proceeds" eternally from the Father.The Father is the center, the Son the mission, the procession happens for the Holy Trinity. The filioque creates a double procession and confuses the procession with the mission.
@Montenero1439 The filioque is not in Scriptures. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which blatantly forbade any changes to the Creed. No early church Father wrote about the filioque or a double procession.
All you are trying to do is justify something that has no real justification.
If we look to John 20:22, it says "He breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit". This clearly shows tha the Holy Spirit precedes not only from the Father, but also the Son, since Jesus giving the Holy Spirit.
@trueorthodoxfaith Even in Galatians 4:6, Paul writes "God hath sent the Spirit of his son into your hearts". If that is the case, would this mean that Christ has a separate Spirit? Also in Romans 8:9 it states "You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. No if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" And John 10:38 "...that the father is in me, and I in the father".
@Tyler1990W If Christ is the incarnation of God, as the first chapter of John states, then all aspects of God are present in Christ. Christ was both human and divine. So the Holy Spirit, being a manifestation of God, also is a manifestation of Christ. Like the equation A=B=C. All parts are equal and dependent on each other
@Tyler1990W There is nothing in Scriptures that states "from the Son" or supports the filioque. Christ is born eternally from the Father. The Holy Spirit "proceeds" eternally from the Father. The Father is the 'center", the Son the mission. The procession happens for the Holy Spirit. This simply explains the hypostasis of the Trinity and the three Person.The Father is the principle and the source.
@Tyler1990W The filioque addition was not approved by an ecumenical council and the addition goes against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. That no changes or additions were to be made to the Nicene Creed. The Latin church made a canonical error.
@trueorthodoxfaith Very good arguments. However, John 16.15 Christ says "All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you" If Christ has the same abilities as the Father, the same things, then we can assume that he ALSO can have the Holy Spirit procede from Him. But I would also like to ask you, which form of Orthodoxy is the right one?
@Tyler1990W Each "person" in the Holy Trinity has their own characteristics or hypostasis. The only allowed catechetical explanation allowed is the formula "through the Son". The original Creed was affirmed as unchangeable by the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The teaching of the filioque introduces into the divinity two principles, a dyarchy, which destroys the unity of the divinity, the monarchy of the Father, the source.
This is a mere photian lie. There is not diarchy since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from ONE principle and not 2. If thru the son is allowed then to say "from the son" is allowed too. St Gregory of Nyssa said "but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son."
@Tyler1990W The is no "form of Orthodoxy". The Orthodox Church is the same whether in the USA, Russia, Greece, Serbia or anywhere else. I have been to Orthodox Churches in Greece, Russia, Ukraine and in Western Europe. It is all the same.
@trueorthodoxfaith Okay, true. But lets say someone were to convert to Orthodoxy. different Orthodox Churches, wether it be Romanian or Russian, has thier own practices on conversions. SOme even require another baptisim. If that is the case, how can you say that all branches are the same. As a matter of fact, even Georgian Orthodoxy has a different view on the Trinity than Standard Orthodoxy
@Tyler1990W The majority of Orthodox require a second baptism, and all require catechumen classes.If a prior baptism is valid. according to Orthodox Traditions, then that convert enters the Church performing certain rites during a service. I do not know where you get your info, but the Georgian Orthodox do not have a different view or theology on the Holy Trinity.
@trueorthodoxfaith Thanks for the correction with the Georgian Orthodoxy, my mistake. But agian, why would different Orthodox churches have different practices in terms of converts if they are all the same? Also, you previously stated that you have been to other Orthodox churches and it is all the same, well you could attend a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (the Unitate) Church and would also notice it to be the same, since they use the same Lit.
@Tyler1990W But there are differences among the Churches, simply because of cultural differences. Every branch of Orthodoxy has its own saints. Where is the overall governing body that was esablished in St.Peter?
@Tyler1990W All catechumens face the same rites when entering into the Orthodox Church. Eastern Rite Churches are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox and I see no reason to attend their services.
Peter did not establish a governing body. The first church established in Jerusalem was set up as a synod. This same type of church governance is what exists in Orthodoxy. Each Orthodox might have their own "national" Saint, but they are recognized by all other Orthodox.
thanks brother thank you very much, I undrstund it's hard work to discover all the things you've done onec again thanks for your time.......efert...god bless you.
"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler." Valentinian III A.D. 445
@gtepp031387 I don't know where you are getting your info from, but it is incorrect. I know of some misleading websites, that are stating that the Creed says,'from the Father and through the Son." This is totally incorrect and misleading. The official Creed, the profession of Faith, that was agreed upon states only, "who proceeds from the Father."
@trueorthodoxfaith Well, tho it is not truley the creed, it is a confession of faith from the 7th ecumentical council...but it is an infallible statment from the 7th council, agreed upon by all 5 sees, they did not add it to the creed, but it is a profession of faith. Why would you reject the profession of faith from the 7th ecumentical council? Not only that but again in Florance all 5 sees agreed upon the filioque.
@trueorthodoxfaith Almost all the early fathers profess some form of the filioque, either through or from the son, in order for the filioque to be wrong we must abondon some much ealry tradtion, we myswell not even say we follow holy tradition pre Nicea.
@gtepp031387 That is incorrect. The Creed was finalized by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There was to be no changes to the Symbol of Faith.The filioque was finally adopted and inserted in the Creed by Rome in 1014 AD. The filioque was and still is a major difference between the East and West.
@trueorthodoxfaith The Filioque, mabey was not in the creed,(there are many things that are not in the creed for instance if I was to say I believe in Jesus Christ the Lamb of GOD..whould you have a problem) but to reject it as the truth is just ridiculus! And in fact the filioque was agreed upon long before 1014, ever heard of the The Athanasian Creed 400 A.D.?
@trueorthodoxfaith Augustine..."Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
"For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
@trueorthodoxfaith "Through the son", is the way I recite the creed, as it was accepted by the 5 holy sees on two different occasion. However I can not fault those who say "and the son", as the holy Saints clearly believed this as well. And the holy spirt also has it's origen from the holy spirit, it was thire in the begging, as was the son.
@gtepp031387 "Through the Son" is not part of the Nicene Creed, which was confirmed at the Seven Councils. What Saints confirmed "from the Son", the filioque?
@trueorthodoxfaith The Nicene creed doesn't even touch the holy spirit, that comes from the council at Constantinople. The 7th council as I have stated several times made a confession of faith stating "through the son" and again in Florance in the 5 holy sees accepted "through the son"...as far as "from the father and the son" i have already posted the holy Saints, if you would have read my posts you would have seen i listed several already!
@gtepp031387 The issue is the filioque, which was added to the Western Creed, and goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Get with the program. This is one of the major obstacles between the Orthodox and the Latin West.
@vasilyjc1955 The filioque, if you do not wish to say it fine. We do not make our eastern rite churches say it either, however you will never take it away from the Latin rite.
@gtepp031387 The point is, the Orthodox Church as a whole rejects the filioque. It was a tragedy what occurred at Florence, but in the end the Orthodox rejected this council. St. Augustine is the only one from the Saints that you quoted that supported the filioque. All the others do not mention "from the son".
@gtepp031387 The Orthodox delegates at Florence were hoping that Rome would intervene to stop the Muslim onslaught. Rome rejected this. The Orthodox minority in Turkey is under Muslim domination and has no other choice but to submit to their demands. The Orthodox are in constant fear, with churches being destroyed in Turkish controlled Cyprus. This is happening in Kosovo, and other areas in the Middle East. The West turns ignores the violence against the Orthodox minorities.
@gtepp031387 What ecumenical decision are the Orthodox rejecting? The main objective at Florence was for the Orthodox to submit to the demands and authority of the Latin Church, and accept the Latin's new dogmas. It is the Orthodox Church that has been steadfast in keeping the teachings,dogmas and theology of the early church. The Latin church has deviated.
@trueorthodoxfaith Sry you make it sound like they just met casually one day and said ok thats it, then turned around and said that wasn't right. They spent 10 MONTHS discussing the filioque and they achieved an ecumentical decision, you have no right to reject it.
@gtepp031387 It was more than just the filioque, it was other dogmas that the Latin church had added.This council was more of a political move on the part of Rome, to have complete authority over the entire church. The Orthodox had every right to reject this council, since it goes against Orthodox theology and teachings. The Orthodox did not want to be under Rome's authority.
@trueorthodoxfaith I will agree to disagre with why the easterns later rejected the council of Florence. However,nfor a time, they did accept it. All 5 holy sees, for a time accepted it, thus it was ecumentical and infallible. And unless all 5 sees reject it, I don't know about you, but I am bound by apostolic authority to accept it.
@gtepp031387 This council had nothing to do with Apostolic authority. It was a political council on the part of the Latin West. The Latins wanted the East to submit to Rome and their false teachings. The decisions made at this council were improper. A consensus on the part of the Orthodox hierarchs and among the Orthodox majority was not evident , this council was not legit. The decisions at this council went against the true faith, theology and doctrines.
@vasilyjc1955 Sure whatever makes you sleep at night...But all 5 holy sees agreed, they where not tortured into agreement or something, like the Pope was in the 5th council, tho we still aceept it. The plain fact is all 5 holy sees agreed and all 5 holy sees have not condeemed it, so it remains ecumentical and will saty thast way, nothing you can do will change that fact.
@gtepp031387 Representatives of all the Orthodox churches were not present Only certain delegates representing the Eastern Patriarchs were present. The only Patriarch that accepted this council was Constantinople, and this was due to pressure from the emperor, all the rest rejected the council's decisions, and most delegates that returned were defrocked.
@vasilyjc1955 Did the council not have these men in attendance?... Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus; Isidore of Kiev (representing the Patriarch of Antioch),Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, Antonius, the Metropolitan of Heraclea(represented the Patriarch of Alexandria),Dionysius, Bishop of Sardes (representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem);..ect..So would you like to change you last stament???
@gtepp031387 First, an Ecumenical council, by definition, is accepted by both all of the hierarchs and laity. This was not the case with Florence.
Second, the acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance of an Eastern Council. Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, died two days later in Florence. The Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern Synod. The rest of the entire Eastern church rejected Florence.
@gtepp031387 What is you point? Florence was rejected by the entire Orthodox Church, because it compromised the faith.That is history. The Latins use Florence as part of propaganda against the Orthodox.
@trueorthodoxfaith ence was accepted by a council that had The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all delagates from the other eastern sees. It whent on for a year, do you think there was no communication back and fourth during this year to the Patriarchs in the east? You can try to hide behind ignorance of the Patriarchs, but this is a faulty argument.
@gtepp031387 The council went on for a period of time, but a final decision was not met until the end. When the Orthodox delegates left and returned, this is when the uproar occurred and the council was rejected. This happened with the Oriental Orthodox and their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.
@trueorthodoxfaith "This happened with the Oriental Orthodox and their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.".... Which was ecumentical.... nice example, that is exactly what it is like ! )
@gtepp031387 Was Florence really ecumenical? Did all the patriarchs agree and sign the documents? No! The first Seven Ecumenical Councils were agreed upon by all bishops of the church, and signed by the patriarchs.
@vasilyjc1955 As your dear friend pointed out this is not true, you should explain your case to the Oriental Orthodox Patriarch...I bet that would be a sight to see!
@vasilyjc1955 - "Was Florence really ecumenical? Did all the patriarchs agree and sign the documents? No! The first Seven Ecumenical Councils were agreed upon by all bishops of the church, and signed by the patriarchs." -
A substantial group of bishops did not recognize the Council of Chalcedon. They broke off and formed what is now known as the Oriental Orthodox Church.
And, according to the Roman Catholic Church, Florence was an Ecumenical Council, no matter who says otherwise.
@gtepp031387 The acts of the Ecumenical Council must be signed first of all by the Patriarchs. This was not the case with Florence. The Greek representatives insisted that their declarations were only personal opinions and that it was necessary for an Eastern synod to be assembled to ratify the Florence Council. Florence was a limited council with chosen participants. This was strictly a political council on the Latin side.
@trueorthodoxfaith - "This was strictly a political council on the Latin side." -
The same could easily be said about the Orthodox side. Apparently Orthodox Christians believe that it was a good idea for the Church of God to make deals with heretics to save themselves from the Turks.
@gtepp031387 In the end Rome found its claimed supremacy rejected by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Florence was a failure from the beginning.
@cfh99nyc Mr. Likoudis is just a Catholic apologist who takes things out of context to further his agenda. For a better understanding go to website: westernandorthodox(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2008/08/answering-heterodox
This will put into context the fallacies of Mr. Likoudis's claims.
So.. Canon 34 speaks nothing of PRIMACY OF HONOR. it said this in the 3rd century. I, a Catholic found the transcipt. I ..a Catholic, found the reference.
CANON 34. "Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise."
@JDNWF66 The Apostolic Canons is an ancient ecclesiastical decrees concerning the government and discipline of the Early Church, that is the Synods of the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.
@vasilyjc1955 I know what they are, dude...but you can't have double 34 canons from the same Aposotolic Decree.. The one I got was from an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine and it is not even close to yours. You need to give me more info...and this just shows how not so easy it can get so don't be a smart ass!!!
@JDNWF66 The apostolic cannons have always been doubted as written by the apostles themselves..The west has never accepted past the 30th cannon..they have always believed they where tampered with.
Ok, , Filioque was believed in west for long time, Toledo's Synod stated it clear, and remained in communion with east for more than 400 years. In the sacred scripture clearly it reads that Jesus blow over the apostles and gave them the Holy Spirit, But the fact that Jesus is The Son, implies that he has the same quality of the Father, the only thing that Son cant do is to be begotten by himself, but he can give the Holy Spirit, that belongs to him and the Father. If not He cant be the Son
@jorgecarrillo2 The East did not accept the filioque addition, even when they were still in Communion with the West. The filioque addition gradually spread in the West after it was confirmed in 633 Ad. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son. John 15:26. This is what the Nicene Creed is based upon. The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
I understand and agree about your claims about the Filioque. however, Is it a huge change? i really don't think so. We are in a historic moment where we need to show the world that catholics and orthodox we are one.
I also see that the orthodox reject everything that sounds "latin", even thou it doesn't question anything.
what is your view about the Holy Rosary for example?
@gerpis The filioque addition goes against specifically the Third Ecumenical Council's decision, that no changes were to be made to the Creed. The filioque changes the theology of the Trinity, and confuses the mission with the profession.
The Orthodox do not reject everything that is 'Latin". They reject Rome's departure from the teachings of the early Church.
@vasilyjc1955 Atanasian Creed states that The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not created, not Begotten but proceds. ¿How can the Holy Spirit be of the Father and Of the Son at the same time and only procede from the Father?
Atanasian creed doesn't specifies that the Holy spirit comes from the Father alone.
@jorgecarrillo2 CORRECT... Thank God more people are coming out of the wood work and clearing David's errors of History and quotations.. He Is A Charlatan and a LIAR. Yes you are David. You ignore the basic rule of debate. You ignore REFERENCES and PRECISE QUOTATIONS to fit your own ANGLES.. Case in point..
Canon 34 talks nothing about the PRIMACY OF THE POPE. I will cite this next. BTW.. I got this info from an Eastern Orthodox Clergy not an anti Catholic website..
@jorgecarrillo2 The filioque was added to the Nicene Creed, which goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. These Councils approved the Nicene Creed.
oh the church of rome changed the original true faith more than anybody. everybody subscribed to rome as the root of orthodoxy because money talks and bullshit walks.rome had a big head and still does. it was the center of the empire and they had more ego than the Washington DC beltway has times 100. the romans felt they had a divine right to rape and pillage other people's land during the empire and that continued into christian era. the true faith was the Hebreaic church not pagan Rome
Grace and Free Will-- I will put that in my reading queue.
If you are unfamiliar with the Eastern fathers, may I suggest you read St. Symeon the New Theologian's "On the Mystical Life," St. Ephrem the Syrian's "On Paradise," something about St. Basil of Caesarea and/or St. John Chrysostom and anything and everything by St. Isaac of Ninevah.
Also, I was wondering, is St. Isaac of Ninevah acknowledged as a Saint of the Catholic Church? I ask this because he was never in visible communion.
For there was also another James, the brother of the Lord: therefore to distinguish him, he says, "The brother of John." Do you mark that the sum of affairs rested in these three, especially Peter and James?
St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles," Homily XXVI
@Mikhael1C First of all in none of ur qotes did u prove the keys rested in anything but the church and it only reafirms Peters position of the Rock on which the church was built. And as i gave u a quote earlier if u do not hold fast to the seat of Peter then can u be sure u are part of the church? Obviously all apostals have binding and loosing privlidges i never argued this they all have the power also to forgive and retain sins.
@Mikhael1C Do u claim that the apostal the persons can forgive sins or bind and loose or really do anything? Where do miricals come from who is the only one with power. I do not nor will never boast of the person. If that is ur impression from what iv wrotten then u are wrong it is not Peter the person that does anything
@gtepp031387 I claim that to remove the powers of the office from the holder of the office in a practical sense doesn't make sense. I don't think that Christ promised the authority to bind and loose to hypothetical attributes of a particular ecclesiastical office; He promised said authority to Apostles and their successors.
@Mikhael1C Binding and loosing no he prenounced to all i have already said that i do not argue against this. "Whoever opposes the bishop does in reality serve the devil" St Ignatious obviously he considered thoes under the bishop to listen to himas if he where the apostal or even the LORD himself so yes when they are alone, given that they are in communion with the church, they speak for the apostals
@gtepp031387 Most recently I used binding and loosing as just an example.
What you say here about St. Ignatios' position would better support the Orthodox position than the Catholic one. Unless of course you are arguing that Ignatios' context is that one must be in communion with Rome, which is a sentiment not found in this writing.
@Mikhael1C No i agree Rome as the chair is never mentioned in the writting of Ignatious however he does write a letter to Rome calling i the holy city and worthy of all praise and glory.... So where in the book of acts is Peter in err please privide a chap and a verse
@gtepp031387 I gave an argument from the fathers that showed that the traditional understanding of the keys, that of the power of binding and loosing, is not unique to Peter. You insinuated the keys were unique to Peter, as does the CCC. Clearly the fathers disagree.
If the keys are not this, provide a sufficient explanation as I asked you to do initially.
@Mikhael1C The Keys represent authority particularly the authority given by of the holy spirit. It is not the person of Peter that was infallibile but the gift of the holy spirit who says to him "Your faith will not fail" and "tend my flock" and "I give you the keys to the kingdom(not they or them or the many nor all but you as the person(not to boast in the flesh but to boast of the strength of the spirit) he is speaking to) of heaven"
@Mikhael1C James and John are due there rightful place i never argued that i never argued that Peter is somehow greater than the others my argument is that he possesed Authority the others did not and i have sufficently proved this. U have not however proved that the keys rest on anyone but Peter and thoes who who are holding fast to the seat of Peter(the church) I do believe that a bishop ordained in the Catholuc church in full communion with the seat of Peter has the keys i don argue this....
@gtepp031387 Your statement is contradictory. Your say that Peter is not greater; however, you turn around to say that he has greater authority. If these are not synonymous, I would like a suitable explanation.
You also say you have sufficiently proven his greater authority. I have yet to see this. Either way, that in itself would not prove the Catholic position. You would also need to show the following:
@Mikhael1C The Pope has all authority that Peter had. this is all i can say on this look at the book of acts did Peter need a council to speak for the apostals, or prnounce a dogma , or to inflict a punishment, or excommunication? and i alread gave u a quote that said that the primacy of Rome was not given by a council but the lord himself.
@gtepp031387 Peter in the book of the Acts of the Apostles contributes to the Council of Jerusalem just like all the other Apostles and bishops in attendance. You will recall that said Council was called because Peter, among others, was in error (he was a Judaizer). You will also recall that St. James the Just had the final word in the Council.
@Mikhael1C Oh ok so u where in err then i have a writting just about Paul and Peters disput from a church father just for this occasion i was hoping u would bring it up
@Mikhael1C respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, Galatians 1:13 still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself. John 5:31 But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures. Still they should show, from the circumstance
@Mikhael1C which they allege of Peter's being rebuked by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel besides that which Peter and the rest had previously set forth. But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren— to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he
@Mikhael1C They accordingly even gave him “the right hand of fellowship,” Galatians 2:9 as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged among themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the
@Mikhael1C Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced. - St Tertullian
Firstly, that is a fair analysis of the incident. If we are to take Tertullian's position, then I suppose Peter's error is a non-issue. However it is fair to note that Tertullian isn't advocating for Petrine primacy, let alone Roman primacy anywhere in his work. He only wanted to show that the "apostles" did not have "some mark of ignorance," using St. Peter as an example.
Also, Tertullian is not a Saint. He was a Montanist heretic who broke from the Church around A.D. 207. He was not a proponent of the modern Catholic position on the Pope. In his work De Pudicitia (On Modesty) he critiques and mocks the idea of a "bishop of bishops" and applying the title Pontifex Maximus to the bishop of Rome. Looking at Tertullian's other works and due do his schismatic histoty, I can't imagine that his would be a favorable authority to cite for your position.
@Mikhael1C Yes i know about Tertullians later history and how he became a heritic but in the Catholic church he is a saint and a church father... we have differnnt saint for instance in our church constantine is not a saint. And i was not dealing with the matter of office Papacy but with infallibility so this quote was thouroly on topic.
@Mikhael1C Sry ur right about Tertullian i just quickley looked it up online and wasnt paying attention. I know tertullian is listed in a list of church fathers so he must be a siant to us i may be wrong though.
@gtepp031387 Don't be too eager to include him in the Synaxis of Saints just because someone mentioned him as a Church father. I've seen Origen mentioned as a Church father as he and his writings are condemned by name and placed anathema at that Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Many modern scholars have been too eager in promoting all ancient writers as authoritative rather than looking to the Church's actually view on them.
@Mikhael1C well one thing i have to say it is a breath of fresh air debating an Orthodox and not a protest(GODs church)ant as, you guys are much more knowlegeble and on key then them and it helps to build my faith and to work out doubts and strengthen my faith. May the grace and fellowship of the LORD be allways with you
Additionally, this source does not deal with the conciliatory way in which the Judaizing issue was resolved. If St. Peter had supreme authority, why call the Council? Why would St. James have the final authoritative word in the Council?
Also, the very fact that St. Paul found St. Peter to be capable of said fault is telling. If Petrine authority is dogmatic, why would St. Paul make this error?
@Mikhael1C The quote has to do with infallility becaues u believed that his teaching was in err, 2nd i never disagreed that there should be councils the Catholic church has had many councils after the great schism, councils are great to get the news out to all and have all taught at the same time so that there may be no growth in herisies. And Peter the person as i have said like ten times is not infalible
@gtepp031387 There is a St. Peter who is not a person?
Again, the quote doesn't deal with infallibility of Peter at all. All it does is argue that the Apostles were not in error, giving the specific example of Peter. This is incidental data. It is a unnecessary defense against anti-Christian accusations (unnecessary because the failure of one Apostle at one time would not undercut the teaching authority of the whole college of Apostles). It does not address Peter's infallibility specifically.
@Mikhael1C It addresses Peters infallibility becaues u said that Peters teaching was in err this is a main topic of infallibility so yes it is on topic as far as Peter the person and Peter the office... Peter the person is evil as all people are it is only by the grace of GOD that we can do anything good so yes the person is evil the grace that is bestowed(the office that i referr to) Is infallible... does this make any sence i would referr u to read Augustines letters
@gtepp031387 The Orthodox Church rejects these specific Augustinian notions that you have brought up. Augustinian original sin and it's related notions of which the Calvinists have taken to the extreme calling "total depravity" are contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
The Orthodox have been accused of semi-Pelagianism because we reject much of St. Augustine's theology. We are not semi-Pelagians, but at the same time we do not accept much of Augustine.
@Mikhael1C Well my friend i must disagree i love Augustine are u saying that in ur church he is deemed to be heretical? He is the greatest defender of the Catholic/Othodox faith that there ever was.
@gtepp031387 Blessed Augustine is certainly a Saint in the Orthodox Church (June 15). While he is a great writer and confessor and a shining example of repentance, he is considered by the Church to have made many errors. His version of original sin is considered erroneous and has given rise to heresy. His understanding of the theology of Trinity, particularly his understanding of the Holy Spirit is also deemed problematic.
The Orthodox don't general turn to St. Augustine for theology.
@Mikhael1C humm something else is comming to me from Augustine if im not mistaken he once wrote that the intire easter church had fallen from the faith...Yes it is begging to take shape now... We suppoted Augustine and u rejected(for the most part) his writtings....intresting...
@gtepp031387 St. Augustine didn't read Greek well and his writings didn't reach the East until the 1500's so I have to say you are very mistaken. Such a assertion would imply that he condemned the Ecumenical Councils of Chalcedon I and Constantinople II, the first of which was 98% eastern in attendance and the second was almost 100% (there were no Roman legates).
Once again, the East was not familiar with Augustine; there was no direct rejection of some of his works until much later.
@Mikhael1C No your statments only bring it into fuller light Augustine was accepted and praised in the west and his writting u did not have....WOW.... That is huge that brings such a new dynamic to this schism that i have never looked at! As i said b4 Augustine is the greatest theologian of all time! Whith out him there to explain the conceptes of Original sin and the imaculate conception.....WOW is all i can say!
@gtepp031387 If you want something on original sin, read St. John Cassian's "Conferences."
As for the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox do not have this as it doesn't make sense with our understanding of original sin. Thus we reject the Catholic Church's position that it is dogma. I guess mine is a fairly generic Orthodox response.
@Mikhael1C Could find him in the catholic saints but he might be accepted by the easter rite catholics such as the maronites the patraiche of Antioch that is in full communion with Rome
@Mikhael1C Well i dont know exactly if thats even true or not but we let the Orthodox churches that have converted keep most of there traditions like marage of Priests and there own litergy and many of there traditions i dont know if we let them keep there saints or not but we might i am not sure thoe
@Mikhael1C I am looking at John Cassians writtings and i can identify which confrence deals with original sin do u know which one it is as there are 24 of them is it the one on sinlessness? I took a quick scan at that one and i see nothing for or against original sinonly it talks about how we all have sin
@gtepp031387 I'm not sure he talks about 'sinlessness'. Nor is he speaking 'against' original sin. He's just not a proponent of the Augustinian notion of it. In the Orthodox Tradition, there is not a fallen human nature in the sense that sin holds said nature captive with guilt as St. Augustine posits. Rather there are fallen human persons. Human nature is fallen in so far as human individuals are fallen (particularly after the Resurrection). There is no total depravity.
@Mikhael1C It begging to take more of a shape to me... the differences that divide us after all Augustine defends the imaculate conception and Original sin and Papel primacy and praying to the dead...and well just about all that seperates us can be found in Augustines writtings supporting the Catholic church.. Sad my seperated brother he is the greatest theologian ever have u ever read his complete works??
@gtepp031387 I've read his "Confessions," "City of God," "Literal Meaning of Genesis," "Retractationes," "Treatises on the Gospel of John" and selections from "De Trinitate", but that's all.
I sort of got bored of him after having to read Confessions for the 5th time for a class.
@Mikhael1C Read Grace and free will and his letter to the pelagians they have helped me soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much it is like perfect his writting should be scripture!
@Mikhael1C Chapter 23. The Apostles Not Ignorant. The Heretical Pretence of St. Peter's Imperfection Because He Was Rebuked by St. Paul. St. Peter Not Rebuked for Error in Teaching....
Now, with the view of branding the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked by Paul. “Something therefore,” they say, “was wanting in them.” (This they allege,) in order that they may from this construct that other position of
which orthodox church are you apart of like the Serbian, Greek, Russian or..?
boki2388 1 month ago
Good videos. But on this topic: I'm Melkite catholic and we don't have the filioque. But The reason it was added was to combat heresy. Either way we are not ex'd by the catholic church. God bless
7The7Truth7 1 month ago
@7The7Truth7
TO believe in the truth of the Filioque is an obligation even for the melkites. You just dont have to recite it in the creed, but you have to believe in its truth.
Montenero1439 5 days ago
@Montenero1439 There is no truth concerning the filioque addition. It is not in Scriptures and goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. "Through" the Son and "from" the Son have two entirely different theological connotations.
trueorthodoxfaith 5 days ago
@trueorthodoxfaith
You are simply lying. Filioque is in scriptures Revelations 22:1 "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb." The greek word for proceeding is the same that for John 15:26. No ocumenical council prohibited the Filioque. And no, the context shows that thru and from bear the same meaning:
Montenero1439 5 days ago
@Montenero1439
""92. But the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, in all things hath Him both always and continually present. For the same Spirit even in Substance proceeds from Him. " St Gregory the Great; Morals 2:92 .
Montenero1439 5 days ago
@Montenero1439 Let's not interpret the church Fathers to suite your position. St. Gregory states," the Spirit, even in SUBSTANCE, flows from the Son." He does not infer that the Spirit originates from the Son.
The filioque addition was never approved by an Ecumenical Council, the whole church., it was gradually accepted in the west. It is heretical and uncanonical.
trueorthodoxfaith 2 days ago
@trueorthodoxfaith
If the flow in subtance it means it is talking about his being, so it is the origine of the Holy Spirit wich is in view. It is the same word than proceeds.
And this is not true, the Filioque was aproved at least at the Council of Florence :)
Montenero1439 1 day ago
@Montenero1439 The Council of Florence was not Ecumenical.
trueorthodoxfaith 4 hours ago
@trueorthodoxfaith
All your patriarches were presents, as the Pope of Rome so yes it was oecumenical. What is the criteria for an oecumenical council?
Montenero1439 2 hours ago
@Montenero1439 The verse from Revelations and John have nothing to do with the filioque. Like I stated it is not in Scriptures. The Third Ecumenical Council condemns changes to the Creed, canon VII.
How can "through" and "from" be the same thing? The sun's rays are "from" the sun. They originate from the sun. The sun's rays pass "through" the glass. The rays DONOT originate from the glass.
trueorthodoxfaith 2 days ago
@trueorthodoxfaith
You claim it has nothing to do but it is saying that the HS proceeds from both lol. And with the same greek word than in John 15:26. So you have to prove it has nothing to do with it, not only claim it.
The 3rd oecumenical councils forbids to change the creed if it contradicts it, not if it explains or completes the creed.
You example is refuted by the fathers, since st Gregory of Nyssa says the fire comes from the first torch(Father) to the 3rd(HS) thru a 2nd one(son).
Montenero1439 1 day ago
@Montenero1439
St John of Damascus ""The Father is the root, the Son is the branch, the Spirit is the fruit." The fruits has not its origin in the branch? LOL. St. Gregory of Nyssa " It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one)" Against the Macedonians on the Holy Spirit 6.
Montenero1439 1 day ago
@Montenero1439 The theology and teachings of the Trinity are based on John 15:26. "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father." It is "from the Father". The Holy Spirit originates from the Father. St. Gregory states "through" the Son ,not from the Son. You are confusing two different things.
trueorthodoxfaith 4 hours ago
@Montenero1439 Canon VII of the 3rd Ecumenical Council states," the Holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the Holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost at Nicaea." The filioque addition changed the Creed and is not canonically correct.
trueorthodoxfaith 4 hours ago
@Montenero1439 How can the Holy Spirit originate from both. The Father is the only source. Christ is born eternally from the Father. The Holy Spirit "proceeds" eternally from the Father.The Father is the center, the Son the mission, the procession happens for the Holy Trinity. The filioque creates a double procession and confuses the procession with the mission.
trueorthodoxfaith 4 hours ago
@Montenero1439 The filioque is not in Scriptures. The addition goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which blatantly forbade any changes to the Creed. No early church Father wrote about the filioque or a double procession.
All you are trying to do is justify something that has no real justification.
trueorthodoxfaith 4 hours ago
If we look to John 20:22, it says "He breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit". This clearly shows tha the Holy Spirit precedes not only from the Father, but also the Son, since Jesus giving the Holy Spirit.
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W How do you know in John 20:22 that the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from Christ? The Holy Spirit "proceeds' from one source, the Father.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 month ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Even in Galatians 4:6, Paul writes "God hath sent the Spirit of his son into your hearts". If that is the case, would this mean that Christ has a separate Spirit? Also in Romans 8:9 it states "You are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. No if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" And John 10:38 "...that the father is in me, and I in the father".
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W If Christ is the incarnation of God, as the first chapter of John states, then all aspects of God are present in Christ. Christ was both human and divine. So the Holy Spirit, being a manifestation of God, also is a manifestation of Christ. Like the equation A=B=C. All parts are equal and dependent on each other
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W There is nothing in Scriptures that states "from the Son" or supports the filioque. Christ is born eternally from the Father. The Holy Spirit "proceeds" eternally from the Father. The Father is the 'center", the Son the mission. The procession happens for the Holy Spirit. This simply explains the hypostasis of the Trinity and the three Person.The Father is the principle and the source.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W The filioque addition was not approved by an ecumenical council and the addition goes against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. That no changes or additions were to be made to the Nicene Creed. The Latin church made a canonical error.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 month ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Very good arguments. However, John 16.15 Christ says "All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you" If Christ has the same abilities as the Father, the same things, then we can assume that he ALSO can have the Holy Spirit procede from Him. But I would also like to ask you, which form of Orthodoxy is the right one?
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W Each "person" in the Holy Trinity has their own characteristics or hypostasis. The only allowed catechetical explanation allowed is the formula "through the Son". The original Creed was affirmed as unchangeable by the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The teaching of the filioque introduces into the divinity two principles, a dyarchy, which destroys the unity of the divinity, the monarchy of the Father, the source.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 month ago
@trueorthodoxfaith
This is a mere photian lie. There is not diarchy since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from ONE principle and not 2. If thru the son is allowed then to say "from the son" is allowed too. St Gregory of Nyssa said "but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son."
Montenero1439 5 days ago
@Tyler1990W The is no "form of Orthodoxy". The Orthodox Church is the same whether in the USA, Russia, Greece, Serbia or anywhere else. I have been to Orthodox Churches in Greece, Russia, Ukraine and in Western Europe. It is all the same.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 month ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Okay, true. But lets say someone were to convert to Orthodoxy. different Orthodox Churches, wether it be Romanian or Russian, has thier own practices on conversions. SOme even require another baptisim. If that is the case, how can you say that all branches are the same. As a matter of fact, even Georgian Orthodoxy has a different view on the Trinity than Standard Orthodoxy
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W The majority of Orthodox require a second baptism, and all require catechumen classes.If a prior baptism is valid. according to Orthodox Traditions, then that convert enters the Church performing certain rites during a service. I do not know where you get your info, but the Georgian Orthodox do not have a different view or theology on the Holy Trinity.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 month ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Thanks for the correction with the Georgian Orthodoxy, my mistake. But agian, why would different Orthodox churches have different practices in terms of converts if they are all the same? Also, you previously stated that you have been to other Orthodox churches and it is all the same, well you could attend a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (the Unitate) Church and would also notice it to be the same, since they use the same Lit.
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W But there are differences among the Churches, simply because of cultural differences. Every branch of Orthodoxy has its own saints. Where is the overall governing body that was esablished in St.Peter?
Tyler1990W 1 month ago
@Tyler1990W All catechumens face the same rites when entering into the Orthodox Church. Eastern Rite Churches are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox and I see no reason to attend their services.
Peter did not establish a governing body. The first church established in Jerusalem was set up as a synod. This same type of church governance is what exists in Orthodoxy. Each Orthodox might have their own "national" Saint, but they are recognized by all other Orthodox.
trueorthodoxfaith 1 month ago
thanks brother thank you very much, I undrstund it's hard work to discover all the things you've done onec again thanks for your time.......efert...god bless you.
111freta 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler." Valentinian III A.D. 445
PapalSoldier 2 months ago
you must remove your ego-protestant and then you'll see there's one true apostolic church on earth-Orthodox Church!
holicat098 4 months ago
What is he referencing half-way through?
"Formula of ???"
IanMillsN 5 months ago
Rude? To say the least. Please... your undriendly and theologically wrong even among your Eastern Orthodox Bishops.
JDNWF66 9 months ago
Hey buddy you changed the creed...Council of Nicaea II
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).
gtepp031387 9 months ago
@gtepp031387 All Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to use The Original Creed with or without The Filioque. So you are all wrong.
JDNWF66 9 months ago
@gtepp031387 I don't know where you are getting your info from, but it is incorrect. I know of some misleading websites, that are stating that the Creed says,'from the Father and through the Son." This is totally incorrect and misleading. The official Creed, the profession of Faith, that was agreed upon states only, "who proceeds from the Father."
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Well, tho it is not truley the creed, it is a confession of faith from the 7th ecumentical council...but it is an infallible statment from the 7th council, agreed upon by all 5 sees, they did not add it to the creed, but it is a profession of faith. Why would you reject the profession of faith from the 7th ecumentical council? Not only that but again in Florance all 5 sees agreed upon the filioque.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
Comment removed
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Almost all the early fathers profess some form of the filioque, either through or from the son, in order for the filioque to be wrong we must abondon some much ealry tradtion, we myswell not even say we follow holy tradition pre Nicea.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 That is incorrect. The Creed was finalized by the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There was to be no changes to the Symbol of Faith.The filioque was finally adopted and inserted in the Creed by Rome in 1014 AD. The filioque was and still is a major difference between the East and West.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith The Filioque, mabey was not in the creed,(there are many things that are not in the creed for instance if I was to say I believe in Jesus Christ the Lamb of GOD..whould you have a problem) but to reject it as the truth is just ridiculus! And in fact the filioque was agreed upon long before 1014, ever heard of the The Athanasian Creed 400 A.D.?
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Augustine..."Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Didymus the Blind
"For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Gregory the Wonderworker
"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Maximus the Confessor
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Council of Nicaea II
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 Yes, but "through the Son" is not in the Creed. The filioque "from the Son" is heretical and is quite different.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith "Through the son", is the way I recite the creed, as it was accepted by the 5 holy sees on two different occasion. However I can not fault those who say "and the son", as the holy Saints clearly believed this as well. And the holy spirt also has it's origen from the holy spirit, it was thire in the begging, as was the son.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 "Through the Son" is not part of the Nicene Creed, which was confirmed at the Seven Councils. What Saints confirmed "from the Son", the filioque?
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith The Nicene creed doesn't even touch the holy spirit, that comes from the council at Constantinople. The 7th council as I have stated several times made a confession of faith stating "through the son" and again in Florance in the 5 holy sees accepted "through the son"...as far as "from the father and the son" i have already posted the holy Saints, if you would have read my posts you would have seen i listed several already!
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 The issue is the filioque, which was added to the Western Creed, and goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Get with the program. This is one of the major obstacles between the Orthodox and the Latin West.
vasilyjc1955 8 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 The filioque, if you do not wish to say it fine. We do not make our eastern rite churches say it either, however you will never take it away from the Latin rite.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 You are missing the point entirely. The filioque began in the West and is heretical.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith If the filioque is heretical then so be every Saints that spoke of it, so be all 5 sees at once who accepted it twice.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 The point is, the Orthodox Church as a whole rejects the filioque. It was a tragedy what occurred at Florence, but in the end the Orthodox rejected this council. St. Augustine is the only one from the Saints that you quoted that supported the filioque. All the others do not mention "from the son".
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith The tradegy is what happened after Florence, that is, how you let the Moslems make you reject an ecumentical decision.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 The Orthodox delegates at Florence were hoping that Rome would intervene to stop the Muslim onslaught. Rome rejected this. The Orthodox minority in Turkey is under Muslim domination and has no other choice but to submit to their demands. The Orthodox are in constant fear, with churches being destroyed in Turkish controlled Cyprus. This is happening in Kosovo, and other areas in the Middle East. The West turns ignores the violence against the Orthodox minorities.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith What ever makes you sleep better at night, knowing that you are rejecting an ecumentical decision.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 What ecumenical decision are the Orthodox rejecting? The main objective at Florence was for the Orthodox to submit to the demands and authority of the Latin Church, and accept the Latin's new dogmas. It is the Orthodox Church that has been steadfast in keeping the teachings,dogmas and theology of the early church. The Latin church has deviated.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith Sry you make it sound like they just met casually one day and said ok thats it, then turned around and said that wasn't right. They spent 10 MONTHS discussing the filioque and they achieved an ecumentical decision, you have no right to reject it.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 It was more than just the filioque, it was other dogmas that the Latin church had added.This council was more of a political move on the part of Rome, to have complete authority over the entire church. The Orthodox had every right to reject this council, since it goes against Orthodox theology and teachings. The Orthodox did not want to be under Rome's authority.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith I will agree to disagre with why the easterns later rejected the council of Florence. However,nfor a time, they did accept it. All 5 holy sees, for a time accepted it, thus it was ecumentical and infallible. And unless all 5 sees reject it, I don't know about you, but I am bound by apostolic authority to accept it.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 This council had nothing to do with Apostolic authority. It was a political council on the part of the Latin West. The Latins wanted the East to submit to Rome and their false teachings. The decisions made at this council were improper. A consensus on the part of the Orthodox hierarchs and among the Orthodox majority was not evident , this council was not legit. The decisions at this council went against the true faith, theology and doctrines.
vasilyjc1955 8 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 Sure whatever makes you sleep at night...But all 5 holy sees agreed, they where not tortured into agreement or something, like the Pope was in the 5th council, tho we still aceept it. The plain fact is all 5 holy sees agreed and all 5 holy sees have not condeemed it, so it remains ecumentical and will saty thast way, nothing you can do will change that fact.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 Representatives of all the Orthodox churches were not present Only certain delegates representing the Eastern Patriarchs were present. The only Patriarch that accepted this council was Constantinople, and this was due to pressure from the emperor, all the rest rejected the council's decisions, and most delegates that returned were defrocked.
vasilyjc1955 8 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 Did the council not have these men in attendance?... Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus; Isidore of Kiev (representing the Patriarch of Antioch),Joseph, Patriarch of Constantinople, Antonius, the Metropolitan of Heraclea(represented the Patriarch of Alexandria),Dionysius, Bishop of Sardes (representing the Patriarch of Jerusalem);..ect..So would you like to change you last stament???
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 First, an Ecumenical council, by definition, is accepted by both all of the hierarchs and laity. This was not the case with Florence.
Second, the acceptance of Florence was conditional upon its acceptance of an Eastern Council. Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, died two days later in Florence. The Greeks insisted that ratification by the Eastern Church could be achieved only by the agreement of an Eastern Synod. The rest of the entire Eastern church rejected Florence.
vasilyjc1955 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 What is you point? Florence was rejected by the entire Orthodox Church, because it compromised the faith.That is history. The Latins use Florence as part of propaganda against the Orthodox.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith ence was accepted by a council that had The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all delagates from the other eastern sees. It whent on for a year, do you think there was no communication back and fourth during this year to the Patriarchs in the east? You can try to hide behind ignorance of the Patriarchs, but this is a faulty argument.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 The council went on for a period of time, but a final decision was not met until the end. When the Orthodox delegates left and returned, this is when the uproar occurred and the council was rejected. This happened with the Oriental Orthodox and their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith "This happened with the Oriental Orthodox and their rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.".... Which was ecumentical.... nice example, that is exactly what it is like ! )
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 Was Florence really ecumenical? Did all the patriarchs agree and sign the documents? No! The first Seven Ecumenical Councils were agreed upon by all bishops of the church, and signed by the patriarchs.
vasilyjc1955 8 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 As your dear friend pointed out this is not true, you should explain your case to the Oriental Orthodox Patriarch...I bet that would be a sight to see!
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 - "Was Florence really ecumenical? Did all the patriarchs agree and sign the documents? No! The first Seven Ecumenical Councils were agreed upon by all bishops of the church, and signed by the patriarchs." -
A substantial group of bishops did not recognize the Council of Chalcedon. They broke off and formed what is now known as the Oriental Orthodox Church.
And, according to the Roman Catholic Church, Florence was an Ecumenical Council, no matter who says otherwise.
TenderTrap86 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 The acts of the Ecumenical Council must be signed first of all by the Patriarchs. This was not the case with Florence. The Greek representatives insisted that their declarations were only personal opinions and that it was necessary for an Eastern synod to be assembled to ratify the Florence Council. Florence was a limited council with chosen participants. This was strictly a political council on the Latin side.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trueorthodoxfaith - "This was strictly a political council on the Latin side." -
The same could easily be said about the Orthodox side. Apparently Orthodox Christians believe that it was a good idea for the Church of God to make deals with heretics to save themselves from the Turks.
TenderTrap86 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 In the end Rome found its claimed supremacy rejected by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Florence was a failure from the beginning.
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
@trueorthodoxfaith I agree that Rome should not have supremacy, except in ex-cathedra settings, they MUST HOWEVER HAVE PRIMACY.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387 Is the Creed you recite state,'through the Son"?
trueorthodoxfaith 8 months ago
Read James Likoudis... He was orthodox and converted. who wrote a great book on ceaseropapism... the orthodox suffers from that
cfh99nyc 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cfh99nyc Mr. Likoudis is just a Catholic apologist who takes things out of context to further his agenda. For a better understanding go to website: westernandorthodox(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2008/08/answering-heterodox
This will put into context the fallacies of Mr. Likoudis's claims.
vasilyjc1955 9 months ago
So.. Canon 34 speaks nothing of PRIMACY OF HONOR. it said this in the 3rd century. I, a Catholic found the transcipt. I ..a Catholic, found the reference.
CANON 34. "Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise."
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 The Apostolic Canons is an ancient ecclesiastical decrees concerning the government and discipline of the Early Church, that is the Synods of the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 I know what they are, dude...but you can't have double 34 canons from the same Aposotolic Decree.. The one I got was from an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine and it is not even close to yours. You need to give me more info...and this just shows how not so easy it can get so don't be a smart ass!!!
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@JDNWF66 The apostolic cannons have always been doubted as written by the apostles themselves..The west has never accepted past the 30th cannon..they have always believed they where tampered with.
gtepp031387 9 months ago
Ok, , Filioque was believed in west for long time, Toledo's Synod stated it clear, and remained in communion with east for more than 400 years. In the sacred scripture clearly it reads that Jesus blow over the apostles and gave them the Holy Spirit, But the fact that Jesus is The Son, implies that he has the same quality of the Father, the only thing that Son cant do is to be begotten by himself, but he can give the Holy Spirit, that belongs to him and the Father. If not He cant be the Son
jorgecarrillo2 10 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 The East did not accept the filioque addition, even when they were still in Communion with the West. The filioque addition gradually spread in the West after it was confirmed in 633 Ad. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent into the world by the Son. John 15:26. This is what the Nicene Creed is based upon. The filioque addition goes against the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
I understand and agree about your claims about the Filioque. however, Is it a huge change? i really don't think so. We are in a historic moment where we need to show the world that catholics and orthodox we are one.
I also see that the orthodox reject everything that sounds "latin", even thou it doesn't question anything.
what is your view about the Holy Rosary for example?
gerpis 11 months ago
@gerpis The filioque addition goes against specifically the Third Ecumenical Council's decision, that no changes were to be made to the Creed. The filioque changes the theology of the Trinity, and confuses the mission with the profession.
The Orthodox do not reject everything that is 'Latin". They reject Rome's departure from the teachings of the early Church.
vasilyjc1955 11 months ago
@vasilyjc1955 Atanasian Creed states that The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not created, not Begotten but proceds. ¿How can the Holy Spirit be of the Father and Of the Son at the same time and only procede from the Father?
Atanasian creed doesn't specifies that the Holy spirit comes from the Father alone.
jorgecarrillo2 10 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 CORRECT... Thank God more people are coming out of the wood work and clearing David's errors of History and quotations.. He Is A Charlatan and a LIAR. Yes you are David. You ignore the basic rule of debate. You ignore REFERENCES and PRECISE QUOTATIONS to fit your own ANGLES.. Case in point..
Canon 34 talks nothing about the PRIMACY OF THE POPE. I will cite this next. BTW.. I got this info from an Eastern Orthodox Clergy not an anti Catholic website..
JDNWF66 10 months ago
@jorgecarrillo2 The filioque was added to the Nicene Creed, which goes against the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. These Councils approved the Nicene Creed.
vasilyjc1955 10 months ago
oh the church of rome changed the original true faith more than anybody. everybody subscribed to rome as the root of orthodoxy because money talks and bullshit walks.rome had a big head and still does. it was the center of the empire and they had more ego than the Washington DC beltway has times 100. the romans felt they had a divine right to rape and pillage other people's land during the empire and that continued into christian era. the true faith was the Hebreaic church not pagan Rome
narlycat 11 months ago
Comment removed
abel171717 1 year ago
Grace and Free Will-- I will put that in my reading queue.
If you are unfamiliar with the Eastern fathers, may I suggest you read St. Symeon the New Theologian's "On the Mystical Life," St. Ephrem the Syrian's "On Paradise," something about St. Basil of Caesarea and/or St. John Chrysostom and anything and everything by St. Isaac of Ninevah.
Also, I was wondering, is St. Isaac of Ninevah acknowledged as a Saint of the Catholic Church? I ask this because he was never in visible communion.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
For there was also another James, the brother of the Lord: therefore to distinguish him, he says, "The brother of John." Do you mark that the sum of affairs rested in these three, especially Peter and James?
St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles," Homily XXVI
"These three.."
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C First of all in none of ur qotes did u prove the keys rested in anything but the church and it only reafirms Peters position of the Rock on which the church was built. And as i gave u a quote earlier if u do not hold fast to the seat of Peter then can u be sure u are part of the church? Obviously all apostals have binding and loosing privlidges i never argued this they all have the power also to forgive and retain sins.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 The first quote I gave in this entire discussion was this:
"Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." - St. Cyprian, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5.
If you recall correctly you agreed to it immediately.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Yes i agree with all church fathers. Peter the peron is not the Rock this is truth
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Do u claim that the apostal the persons can forgive sins or bind and loose or really do anything? Where do miricals come from who is the only one with power. I do not nor will never boast of the person. If that is ur impression from what iv wrotten then u are wrong it is not Peter the person that does anything
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I claim that to remove the powers of the office from the holder of the office in a practical sense doesn't make sense. I don't think that Christ promised the authority to bind and loose to hypothetical attributes of a particular ecclesiastical office; He promised said authority to Apostles and their successors.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Binding and loosing no he prenounced to all i have already said that i do not argue against this. "Whoever opposes the bishop does in reality serve the devil" St Ignatious obviously he considered thoes under the bishop to listen to himas if he where the apostal or even the LORD himself so yes when they are alone, given that they are in communion with the church, they speak for the apostals
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Most recently I used binding and loosing as just an example.
What you say here about St. Ignatios' position would better support the Orthodox position than the Catholic one. Unless of course you are arguing that Ignatios' context is that one must be in communion with Rome, which is a sentiment not found in this writing.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C No i agree Rome as the chair is never mentioned in the writting of Ignatious however he does write a letter to Rome calling i the holy city and worthy of all praise and glory.... So where in the book of acts is Peter in err please privide a chap and a verse
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I gave an argument from the fathers that showed that the traditional understanding of the keys, that of the power of binding and loosing, is not unique to Peter. You insinuated the keys were unique to Peter, as does the CCC. Clearly the fathers disagree.
If the keys are not this, provide a sufficient explanation as I asked you to do initially.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C The Keys represent authority particularly the authority given by of the holy spirit. It is not the person of Peter that was infallibile but the gift of the holy spirit who says to him "Your faith will not fail" and "tend my flock" and "I give you the keys to the kingdom(not they or them or the many nor all but you as the person(not to boast in the flesh but to boast of the strength of the spirit) he is speaking to) of heaven"
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C James and John are due there rightful place i never argued that i never argued that Peter is somehow greater than the others my argument is that he possesed Authority the others did not and i have sufficently proved this. U have not however proved that the keys rest on anyone but Peter and thoes who who are holding fast to the seat of Peter(the church) I do believe that a bishop ordained in the Catholuc church in full communion with the seat of Peter has the keys i don argue this....
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Your statement is contradictory. Your say that Peter is not greater; however, you turn around to say that he has greater authority. If these are not synonymous, I would like a suitable explanation.
You also say you have sufficiently proven his greater authority. I have yet to see this. Either way, that in itself would not prove the Catholic position. You would also need to show the following:
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
1) What constitutes said authority.
2) That Petrine authority is passed specifically to the Roman bishop in a way that is not passed to other bishops.
3) That this is dogmatic and thus intrinsic and necessary to Christianity.
4) That the Popes have authority over the Councils.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C The Pope has all authority that Peter had. this is all i can say on this look at the book of acts did Peter need a council to speak for the apostals, or prnounce a dogma , or to inflict a punishment, or excommunication? and i alread gave u a quote that said that the primacy of Rome was not given by a council but the lord himself.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Peter in the book of the Acts of the Apostles contributes to the Council of Jerusalem just like all the other Apostles and bishops in attendance. You will recall that said Council was called because Peter, among others, was in error (he was a Judaizer). You will also recall that St. James the Just had the final word in the Council.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C uhmm can u give me a chap and a verse where ur getting this from about acts?
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 The Jerusalem Council is the focus of Acts 15, particularly 15:1-21.
St. Paul's condemnation of St. Peters Judaizing is found spelled out in Galatians 2:14
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Oh ok so u where in err then i have a writting just about Paul and Peters disput from a church father just for this occasion i was hoping u would bring it up
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I don't know what you are saying. Where exactly did I err? What writing am I supposed to bring forward?
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C u where in err saying it was in the book of acts no big deal though
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Oh, I don't think I said that, but if I did, my apologies.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, Galatians 1:13 still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself. John 5:31 But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures. Still they should show, from the circumstance
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C which they allege of Peter's being rebuked by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel besides that which Peter and the rest had previously set forth. But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren— to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C They accordingly even gave him “the right hand of fellowship,” Galatians 2:9 as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged among themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced. - St Tertullian
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 My response is two-fold.
Firstly, that is a fair analysis of the incident. If we are to take Tertullian's position, then I suppose Peter's error is a non-issue. However it is fair to note that Tertullian isn't advocating for Petrine primacy, let alone Roman primacy anywhere in his work. He only wanted to show that the "apostles" did not have "some mark of ignorance," using St. Peter as an example.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C
Also, Tertullian is not a Saint. He was a Montanist heretic who broke from the Church around A.D. 207. He was not a proponent of the modern Catholic position on the Pope. In his work De Pudicitia (On Modesty) he critiques and mocks the idea of a "bishop of bishops" and applying the title Pontifex Maximus to the bishop of Rome. Looking at Tertullian's other works and due do his schismatic histoty, I can't imagine that his would be a favorable authority to cite for your position.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Yes i know about Tertullians later history and how he became a heritic but in the Catholic church he is a saint and a church father... we have differnnt saint for instance in our church constantine is not a saint. And i was not dealing with the matter of office Papacy but with infallibility so this quote was thouroly on topic.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 But the quote does not deal with a special infallibility of St. Peter at all. It simply says that the Apostles were not in error.
The Catholic Church considers Tertullian a Saint now? That's odd. Who approved that? (And what is his feast day?)
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C And about St Tertullian i think its april 27th and im not sure who it was aproved by
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387
Ah, you are thinking of St. Tertullian, a fifth century Bishop of Bologna. That's a different person entirely.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Sry ur right about Tertullian i just quickley looked it up online and wasnt paying attention. I know tertullian is listed in a list of church fathers so he must be a siant to us i may be wrong though.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Don't be too eager to include him in the Synaxis of Saints just because someone mentioned him as a Church father. I've seen Origen mentioned as a Church father as he and his writings are condemned by name and placed anathema at that Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Many modern scholars have been too eager in promoting all ancient writers as authoritative rather than looking to the Church's actually view on them.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C If u havent noticed i love Augustine he to me is the greatest theolgian ever... well its a coin flip between him and Paul
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C well one thing i have to say it is a breath of fresh air debating an Orthodox and not a protest(GODs church)ant as, you guys are much more knowlegeble and on key then them and it helps to build my faith and to work out doubts and strengthen my faith. May the grace and fellowship of the LORD be allways with you
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 And with you. I hope that you remain in the Lord's peace as we approach Candlemas.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C
Additionally, this source does not deal with the conciliatory way in which the Judaizing issue was resolved. If St. Peter had supreme authority, why call the Council? Why would St. James have the final authoritative word in the Council?
Also, the very fact that St. Paul found St. Peter to be capable of said fault is telling. If Petrine authority is dogmatic, why would St. Paul make this error?
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C The quote has to do with infallility becaues u believed that his teaching was in err, 2nd i never disagreed that there should be councils the Catholic church has had many councils after the great schism, councils are great to get the news out to all and have all taught at the same time so that there may be no growth in herisies. And Peter the person as i have said like ten times is not infalible
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 There is a St. Peter who is not a person?
Again, the quote doesn't deal with infallibility of Peter at all. All it does is argue that the Apostles were not in error, giving the specific example of Peter. This is incidental data. It is a unnecessary defense against anti-Christian accusations (unnecessary because the failure of one Apostle at one time would not undercut the teaching authority of the whole college of Apostles). It does not address Peter's infallibility specifically.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C It addresses Peters infallibility becaues u said that Peters teaching was in err this is a main topic of infallibility so yes it is on topic as far as Peter the person and Peter the office... Peter the person is evil as all people are it is only by the grace of GOD that we can do anything good so yes the person is evil the grace that is bestowed(the office that i referr to) Is infallible... does this make any sence i would referr u to read Augustines letters
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 The Orthodox Church rejects these specific Augustinian notions that you have brought up. Augustinian original sin and it's related notions of which the Calvinists have taken to the extreme calling "total depravity" are contrary to the Tradition of the Church.
The Orthodox have been accused of semi-Pelagianism because we reject much of St. Augustine's theology. We are not semi-Pelagians, but at the same time we do not accept much of Augustine.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Well my friend i must disagree i love Augustine are u saying that in ur church he is deemed to be heretical? He is the greatest defender of the Catholic/Othodox faith that there ever was.
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 Blessed Augustine is certainly a Saint in the Orthodox Church (June 15). While he is a great writer and confessor and a shining example of repentance, he is considered by the Church to have made many errors. His version of original sin is considered erroneous and has given rise to heresy. His understanding of the theology of Trinity, particularly his understanding of the Holy Spirit is also deemed problematic.
The Orthodox don't general turn to St. Augustine for theology.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C humm something else is comming to me from Augustine if im not mistaken he once wrote that the intire easter church had fallen from the faith...Yes it is begging to take shape now... We suppoted Augustine and u rejected(for the most part) his writtings....intresting...
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 St. Augustine didn't read Greek well and his writings didn't reach the East until the 1500's so I have to say you are very mistaken. Such a assertion would imply that he condemned the Ecumenical Councils of Chalcedon I and Constantinople II, the first of which was 98% eastern in attendance and the second was almost 100% (there were no Roman legates).
Once again, the East was not familiar with Augustine; there was no direct rejection of some of his works until much later.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C No your statments only bring it into fuller light Augustine was accepted and praised in the west and his writting u did not have....WOW.... That is huge that brings such a new dynamic to this schism that i have never looked at! As i said b4 Augustine is the greatest theologian of all time! Whith out him there to explain the conceptes of Original sin and the imaculate conception.....WOW is all i can say!
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 If you want something on original sin, read St. John Cassian's "Conferences."
As for the Immaculate Conception, the Orthodox do not have this as it doesn't make sense with our understanding of original sin. Thus we reject the Catholic Church's position that it is dogma. I guess mine is a fairly generic Orthodox response.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Could find him in the catholic saints but he might be accepted by the easter rite catholics such as the maronites the patraiche of Antioch that is in full communion with Rome
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 How could one sui juris Church accept a Saint but the entire Catholic Church not accept that same Saint? How can that work?
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Well i dont know exactly if thats even true or not but we let the Orthodox churches that have converted keep most of there traditions like marage of Priests and there own litergy and many of there traditions i dont know if we let them keep there saints or not but we might i am not sure thoe
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C I am looking at John Cassians writtings and i can identify which confrence deals with original sin do u know which one it is as there are 24 of them is it the one on sinlessness? I took a quick scan at that one and i see nothing for or against original sinonly it talks about how we all have sin
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I'm not sure he talks about 'sinlessness'. Nor is he speaking 'against' original sin. He's just not a proponent of the Augustinian notion of it. In the Orthodox Tradition, there is not a fallen human nature in the sense that sin holds said nature captive with guilt as St. Augustine posits. Rather there are fallen human persons. Human nature is fallen in so far as human individuals are fallen (particularly after the Resurrection). There is no total depravity.
Read Conference XIII.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Ok but then u have to read the letters of Augustine - on grace of christ and on original sin-
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Ill have to look into the confrerences letter
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C It begging to take more of a shape to me... the differences that divide us after all Augustine defends the imaculate conception and Original sin and Papel primacy and praying to the dead...and well just about all that seperates us can be found in Augustines writtings supporting the Catholic church.. Sad my seperated brother he is the greatest theologian ever have u ever read his complete works??
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@gtepp031387 I've read his "Confessions," "City of God," "Literal Meaning of Genesis," "Retractationes," "Treatises on the Gospel of John" and selections from "De Trinitate", but that's all.
I sort of got bored of him after having to read Confessions for the 5th time for a class.
Mikhael1C 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Read Grace and free will and his letter to the pelagians they have helped me soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much it is like perfect his writting should be scripture!
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C to the pelagians and his letter on grace and free will to completly understand
gtepp031387 1 year ago
@Mikhael1C Chapter 23. The Apostles Not Ignorant. The Heretical Pretence of St. Peter's Imperfection Because He Was Rebuked by St. Paul. St. Peter Not Rebuked for Error in Teaching....
Now, with the view of branding the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked by Paul. “Something therefore,” they say, “was wanting in them.” (This they allege,) in order that they may from this construct that other position of
gtepp031387 1 year ago