|
1 members (theophan),
231
guests, and
76
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,467
Posts417,239
Members6,106
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Todd: While I have heard of Eastern Catholic efforts to delegitimize Lyons II, Florence, Trent, and First Vatican Council, I don't believe that I have ever heard of Second Vatican Council being derogated in this way. If you want, I can probably find some hardline Traditional Latin Catholics to introduce you to. :-) But you do have consistency in what you say.
[. . .]
Best to all,
Robster I try to be consistent.  I reject the ecumenicity of the fourteen Latin particular synods because they do not represent the doctrinal tradition of the whole Church, and my views on this issue are reflected in the teaching of the Melkite Church as expressed on its catechetical website. 8. How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils.
9. Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council � no participation from the Orthodox. [ melkite.org] God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Your link states: The next source of the teachings of the Orthodox Church is the Athanasian Creed, which was written and used by the Western part of the Church and later accepted by the Eastern part, though not used in its liturgical life. This Creed is a source because it states the orthodox teaching of the faith of the Church. This Creed was not written by Athanasius, but attributed to him, and is believed by some to have been written by St. Ambrose in Latin. It is believed to have been written in either the fourth or fifth century. The Athanasian Creed certainly appears to acknowledge the filioque: The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. Cardinal Newman in speaking of the Creed writes: The Creed delivered to him in Baptism will then unfold, first, into the Nicene Creed (as it is called), then into the Athanasian; and, according as his power of grasping the sense of its articles increases, so will it become his duty to contend for them in their fuller and more accurate form. All these unfoldings of the Gospel Doctrine will become to him precious as the original articles, because they are in fact nothing more or less than the {257} one true explanation of them delivered down to us from the first ages, together with the original baptismal or Apostles' Creed itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
The Athanasian Creed certainly appears to acknowledge the filioque The other thread I think shows the language issue is complicated, and the source and procession specifics make a lot of difference. You also have to take in to account later statements on the issue. Either way, 4 Constantinople said the creed was to be unaltered. I think if the following recommendations of the joint theological council were followed the problem would simply go away. - that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use.
- that the Catholic Church, following a growing theological consensus, and in particular the statements made by Pope Paul VI, declare that the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those �who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son� is no longer applicable. I think we're still waiting for those to happen. Unrelated, but I think robster is absolutely correct in his assessment of the post schism councils such as Trent, Florence, Vatican I, etc. for anybody in communion with the Roman Church.
Last edited by AMM; 07/16/07 10:50 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510 |
Ray,
The CDF document that you are referring to (i.e., Ad Catholicam Profundius; a.k.a., Apotheoun my friend... I am on vacation (yippie!) so I have got to lighten up on this subject. In the introduction is says it is a response - by giving the meaning of some terms that the Roman Catholic church is using [b]"in the theological debate"[b] and so that is the context of where and why. That is the 'use' of this publication. "the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate. (not even 'magisterium' is capitalized) I imagine the debate is between itself and other churches. Being a RC myself and having researched and studies a lot (not that I am an expert) - this document does not have the literary form that is used for any kind of declaration or pronouncement. Roman Catholic official documents, pronouncements, declarations - follow certain traditional styles in format. And include what they are - at their head. And so while this publication refers to more official documents (Constitutions and such) there is nothing about this particular publication or its contents that is infallible. A Roman Catholic need not belief it ... or even read it. If one follows some of the references out - one can see they are quoted in a casual and conversational way. If this were an important publication - these would not be quoted in that way and the capitalisation would be precise. Initially, I mistook this 'letter' because, from reading posts here, I had expected it to be one thing (a very official redefinition) and it has turned out to be another. I suspect that its purpose is mostly informative for all sides within the debate that it mentions. More like saying: "So that there is less misunderstanding ... this is how we are using these terms while debating." In that sense, it seems good. All sides need to define how each side is using terms in a debate. There is no progress without that. Learning each others intended meaning. The casual and conversational way that other documents are quotes... seems to be further evidence of that. You see how the quotes differ from the official documents. The RC just does not mis-quote its own documents in other official and important documents. And so this thing (whatever it is) has no real importance or significance for the average Roman Catholic. I have tried to contact the Vatican - but it seems I can not get a good email address. All the addresses I have tried have bounced. You have got to laugh at that. I picture all these young Italian priests who are not techie nerds ... and know very little english ... just trying real hard to keep the web site afloat. Their hands all tangled in hardware ... "Cardinal! Our email does not seem to work - what shall we do?" "I don't know. Try ... seven Hail Mary's and five Our Fathers." -ray
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
Mary, to bow to papal primacy / Petrine authority would be on an assault on 2000 years Eastern Orthodoxy and cause St. Potius the Great to spin in his grave. The pope should beg forgiveness
Bartholomew of Constantinople and ask to become a member of the Orthodox Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177 |
Brothers & Sisters,
Please stop reading reports of this document on MSNBC, BBC, CNN, etc. � read this actual text as posted on the Vatican's web site. I have yet to see an article in the secular media which has not been filled with errors and misrepresentations.
Yes, this document states some things plainly, things which will not please most people outside of the Catholic Church. But the media's ignorance makes things even worse.
Read the original!
_____
Ребята, давайте жить дружно.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 125 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 125 Likes: 1 |
The pope should beg forgiveness
Bartholomew of Constantinople and ask to become a member of the Orthodox Church. But would the patriarcate follow him?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1 |
Is there anything new in the document?
If unity was achieved at the Council of Florence, and no schism started after that point (and lifting anathemas, Balamand Statement, etc), it would seem that there's sufficient unity to require Orthodox participation to have an ecumenical council. If the post Florence councils are just local councils, then unity would be far more likely, especially for the ECs.
To the extent that it suggests that the EO and RC churches are not part both part of the Church, it seems like a step back.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 510 |
OK... where does one report a miracle!
My PC has been acting funny (a hardware problem) and it is 10 years old... so I quietly suggested to my honey that I ... "buy a new 64bit PC with Vista so that you can continue to do your email honey."
She said ... "Go ahead!"
!!!!
-ray
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560 |
That is a miracle. But you should have gotten a Mac.......(let the mud start slinging!)
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Wasn't sure whether to start this on a new thread, but here is an interesting response by Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070713/28425_2_No%2C_I%27m_Not_Offended.htm
Hopefully, this link will work.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396 |
My dear Sir, Why should Bart do so? After all various Ecumenical patriarchs have been keeping a seat for for an Orthodox Bishop of Rome since 1054. What does Bartholomew have to ask forgiveness for?
Last edited by johnzonaras; 07/16/07 08:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
My dear Sir, Why should Bart do so? After all various Ecumenical patriarchs have been keeping a seat for for an Orthodox Bishop of Rome since 1054. What does Bartholomew have to ask forgiveness for? My friend, This is just an FYI (for your information). It is the common practice here to refer to Catholic and Orthodox clergy properly, by their title. You will probably avoid some unnecessary strife if you go ahead and conform to the practice. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 179 |
Re: Albert Mohler Jr.
For some 15 years now, Catholic priest Rev Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, as well as Presbyterian Evangelical Charles Colson, have been heading up an effort called 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together'. They have released a series of statements in this timeframe outlining areas of accord, ways to jointly work together, as well as how to try to tackle the obvious areas of disagreement.
Catholics endorsing ECT have included Cardinals Dulles, George, and Stafford, as well as George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon, Peter Kreeft, and James Hitchcock.
Albert Mohler has been a prominent, tactful, but outspoken opponent of ECT on the Evangelical side who has written on a number of occasions about his inability to sign onto this initiative. In that sense, I think he's more comfortable with the CDF statement then ECT Protestant participants will be.
Best,
Robster
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Re: Albert Mohler Jr.
For some 15 years now, Catholic priest Rev Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, as well as Presbyterian Evangelical Charles Colson, have been heading up an effort called 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together'. They have released a series of statements in this timeframe outlining areas of accord, ways to jointly work together, as well as how to try to tackle the obvious areas of disagreement.
Catholics endorsing ECT have included Cardinals Dulles, George, and Stafford, as well as George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon, Peter Kreeft, and James Hitchcock.
Albert Mohler has been a prominent, tactful, but outspoken opponent of ECT on the Evangelical side who has written on a number of occasions about his inability to sign onto this initiative. In that sense, I think he's more comfortable with the CDF statement then ECT Protestant participants will be.
Best,
Robster This doesn't surprise me and I respect his intellectual honesty. I have read the ECT documents and they are mostly good. But, I don't think that they really address the fundamental issues that divide protestants and Catholics and I think that it is legitimate for a person to ask how people can work together when they have two very different understandings of the Gospel. I sometimes think that protestantism really is an entirely different religion than Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. Joe
|
|
|
|
|
