Heresy of Dual-Cause
#21
(09-25-2010, 11:21 PM)St.Ambrose Wrote: St.John was a illiterate man, as his homily says written by st. John Chrysostom. You are whining over how I write. That is childish, but I am a bigger man so I will take your advice (Snicker)
Yes, in a text only communication setting, proper spelling and syntax is necessary for clarity.

Quote:To say the Father and I are one in this fashion is to be a modalist. Do you spout Modalism? The Father didnt die on the cross, the spirit didn't beget the son and the Father is the sole cause of the spirit and son, the son is not a act in the cause of the spirit. If you read my original post and maybe clicked ONE of the links. You could have seen that. I only showed from the writings. Never commentary. So how do you refute these?
I have the True Church on my side (or rather, I'm on the side of the True Church) instead of some nationalistic sect. While one could interpret the Filioque in any way the wish, only the way intended by the writers is important. This is the typical method of the sects of  sects of perdition...state what the Church teaches falsely, then attack that.

Quote: I have no problem with the filioque as a liturgical, it is the Novel doctrine of dual-procession/dual-cause. The son did not send the spirit as a cause but only temporally after the Father who is the sole cause. Anything else is heresy. In fact Pope Martin I said it was the unanimous words of the latin fathers that the son is not the cause, but the Father alone who is. Again just look at my original post. Don't spout your words, speak the church fathers and use the logic of them not yourself. jeesh
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm Read and understand this and also know your posts are poorly written, not convincing and probably only designed to get attention.

If you want spouting, look at your posts.

You are using a complex theological concept (the Trinity) and your ignorance of God's ways and the Church to try to spread confusion. You quote translations of ancient fallible sources, yet, seem completely confident that the Church is in error, but some nationalistic schismatic sect is not.
Reply
#22
We didn't come to this forum to bandy words with a neophyte with a vendetta against the Church. Why come to "Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum" only to make such posts? Why be a trouble maker?
Reply
#23
(09-25-2010, 06:48 PM)St.Ambrose Wrote: To McNider
Amazing,you honestly need to read the council acts.Lyons they rejected after having been Forced to accept it and Florence was anulled because St.Mark of Ephesus denied to sign the papers.It's quite amazing,Remember there was a time when nearly the whole church signed a semi-arian creed,To "Accept" the filioque is a NO Go.Not merely because it's theologically unsound,not because you can not justify it with some pretty words,but because it contradicts tradition,if we do not have Tradition then we only have novelty

I notice that you dodge most of my questions. This is either because you don't understand what you are talking about, don't know the history of which you speak, or perhaps know these things and just want to forget about them.

I'm familiar with the councils' acts. Pray tell, who "annulled" these councils? Who has such authority? Ultimately, your arguments are the same as those who reject Chalcedon and Ephesus.

And tell us more about Mark of Ephesus, who apparently had the authority to unilaterally dismember councils of God's Church. What was his reaction to the commentaries of the Fathers produced to support the filioque?
Reply
#24
(09-27-2010, 07:02 PM)McNider Wrote:
(09-25-2010, 06:48 PM)St.Ambrose Wrote: To McNider
Amazing,you honestly need to read the council acts.Lyons they rejected after having been Forced to accept it and Florence was anulled because St.Mark of Ephesus denied to sign the papers.It's quite amazing,Remember there was a time when nearly the whole church signed a semi-arian creed,To "Accept" the filioque is a NO Go.Not merely because it's theologically unsound,not because you can not justify it with some pretty words,but because it contradicts tradition,if we do not have Tradition then we only have novelty

I notice that you dodge most of my questions. This is either because you don't understand what you are talking about, don't know the history of which you speak, or perhaps know these things and just want to forget about them.

I'm familiar with the councils' acts. Pray tell, who "annulled" these councils? Who has such authority? Ultimately, your arguments are the same as those who reject Chalcedon and Ephesus.

And tell us more about Mark of Ephesus, who apparently had the authority to unilaterally dismember councils of God's Church. What was his reaction to the commentaries of the Fathers produced to support the filioque?

Sorry,I didn't notice.

Hmmmm. Well The Eastern Patriarchs noticed what was happening and rejected it. Their authority is the authority of the patriarchate and that of The Keys of Heaven.These "Councils" spoke novelty that you call "Doctrinal development". St.Photios of Constantinople made so much VERY CLEAR. Anyone can agree that a council that speaks heresy is no council of conciliar authority even if the Pope is there. No one can annul a council without reason, not even a pope, Leo annulled the famous 28th council because it caused disrespect to the see of alexandria and Antioch. It's all in Pope Leo's letter. I could give it to you if you like.

Now the authority they had was to combat the novelty. St. Vincent wrote that "The catholic faith is believed by everyone,at all times and everywhere" Novelty will NEVER be the faith, nor something believed only by one side or another. It has to BE the faith to BE THE FAITH.
Reply
#25
(09-27-2010, 08:17 PM)St.Ambrose Wrote: Sorry,I didn't notice.

Hmmmm. Well The Eastern Patriarchs noticed what was happening and rejected it. Their authority is the authority of the patriarchate and that of The Keys of Heaven.These "Councils" spoke novelty that you call "Doctrinal development". St.Photios of Constantinople made so much VERY CLEAR. Anyone can agree that a council that speaks heresy is no council of conciliar authority even if the Pope is there. No one can annul a council without reason, not even a pope, Leo annulled the famous 28th council because it caused disrespect to the see of alexandria and Antioch. It's all in Pope Leo's letter. I could give it to you if you like.

Now the authority they had was to combat the novelty. St. Vincent wrote that "The catholic faith is believed by everyone,at all times and everywhere" Novelty will NEVER be the faith, nor something believed only by one side or another. It has to BE the faith to BE THE FAITH.

The Eastern patriarchs held the keys? When did that happen?

Doctrinal development is what every ecumenical council in history did. If you deny this, you don't understand doctrinal development. How did Palamism become elevated to almost dogmatic status in the East when the whole concept was unheard of outside of a few passages from the Cappadocians?

I'm familiar with Pope Leo's letter and the 28th canon. I'm unfamiliar with anyone actually being able to invoke such authority arbitrarily, which is why you are no different from the remaining monophysites and nestorians. You don't like what the Councils said, so you choose to ignore them.

Glad to see you quoted St. Vincent. That must mean that you reject Palamism and the novelty that anyone can annul a council they don't agree with. Or the alternate Eastern novelty that the laity's opinion, taken via some vague ancient straw poll, can refute a council.

By the way, Mark of Ephesus's refutation of the patristic citations teaching the filioque was to claim that, since they disagreed with him, the works all had to be forgeries.
Reply
#26
1) Oh? So only Rome succeeds the apostles? Only Rome succeeds Peter?

"To all the Apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power and says, 'As the Father sent me, so I send you'."  St. Cyprian, Treatise on Unity

St. John Chrysostom: "For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven" - First Homily on the Gospel of St. John

^The Successor of St.John is the bishop of Ephesus.......O.O St.Mark of "EPHESUS".......  -.-  Yeah LOL.^

Cyril of Jerusalem=Catechetical Lecture 6:As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right

Do we deny that they were equal? One who is called the Apostle to the jews,The other the Apostle to the Gentiles?

But you say,  the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism

^^Against Jovinianus (Book I) Written by St.Jerome^^

Now it is given to all the apostles equally. Now Peter was chosen NOT as ruler, but As Primus inter pares , as a source of Unity. Indeed this sounds foreign  to you but it is not foreign it is the faith. This is the very words of Holy St. Cyprian. Indeed, Peter is the "Chief" and "Leader" but not in a Roman matter.In a Eastern Manner. Now you ask me. What Unity does the East have? It is the same unity under the bishop of Constantinople who holds the Apostolic See of unity. Though, What of the schismatics from that throne? Which of these sects is the true faith? Well, Is the SSPX or the FSSP or the Modernist or the SSPV or the Old Catholic or the CMRI the true Church? He who is with Rome, obviously, but who keeps the true faith. Same with the East.

Now all bishops are successors to the apostles,These Bishops receive the keys equally as The Bishop of Rome had or Alexandria or Antioch or Ephesus or Jerusalem or Antioch Or Russia or even Constantinople. If you deny this, you deny them the succession of the Apostles and you also say your bishop is the ONLY bishop there is.

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Now is not any article of faith part of the life saving Gospel of our Lord? Even a Angel of our lord would be condemned for this, how much more if
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No actually,It is not vague in the least. Indeed I found these beliefs to supersede St.Gregory Palamas and was widely held by the eastern Patriarchs and shown to be apostolic in character. Now if Doctrine does develop we destroy our Tradition, truly Tradition is superior to Novelty, Even if the pope is the one to introduce them. Now, even IF doctrinal development  was true we can't have it contradicting former belief. How does it go from "The Father Alone" to "The Father and Son Alone"? The Faith does not "Evolve". That is a Modernist belief.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Haha, well you probably never looked. No disrespect of course. I do not challenge your intelligence, I know you must have studied a lot. I merely mean how can you say none have spoken with such authority? To challenge me with being merely a monothelist or a Nestorian I would challenge you with being just like the Modernist who worship along with Jews and Mohammedans. Would THIS be fair? Truly we are both men who value Tradition aren't we? Do we not look to the same Fathers of the church and to the same writings? No,please let us not call the other a schismatic or a heretic , It was my fault for starting the war. Now I am willing to end it. Though I will not admit Orthodoxy unless I see it. Mr. McNider , do we have a agreement to a mutual will to understand the church?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Well, We are both men of Faith. We are not dumb, so to speak, in regards to our faith. Would you agree a pope can not sanction and hold into effect any council that speaks Heresy or Blasphemy? Would we not agree that even if 99% of the church fallowed the teachings of the Modernist, the church would still be for the respect of the few who are left?

"Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."- St.Athanasius letter to the Catholic.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Indeed. It wouldn't be the first of said Forgeries. The Donation of Constantine, The Pseudo-Isidore Decretal both come to mind. Quite powerful text and used between 1000-1300 with the utmost devastation. To say that the Latin world never produced a forgery and used it to defend it's claim is clearly contradicting plain ol' history.Indeed it has been shown quite a few times to be true. Now that is not quite a honest Charge. Latin Text have been largely known to be corrupt.

God bless you and may God reveal to you his truth, When you hear his voice, Do not harden your heart.
St.Ambrose the Servant of the servants of God

Reply
#27
Taking your last point first, I do doubt your good faith. You have gone from Catholic to spouting extreme Eastern caricatures in a very short time. I can't help but wonder at such a sudden transition.

On your points:

Cyprian- You neglect that this treatise exists in two forms. How about this formulation?

Quote:Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?

Even in the other version, he is quite clear that unity proceeds from Peter. Therefore, as it is clearly spelled out in the Formula of HOrmisdas, unity with Rome is unity with the Church.

Chrysostom- The same guy who stated that the difference between Peter and, say, James, was that Peter was the teacher of the entire world. Check his commentary on John to see for yourself.

I'm not sure how the quote from Cyril is relevant and I concede that I am unfamiliar with the quote from Jerome.

There is nothing in the Fathers describing a primus inter pares. It is a novelty. Your repetition of the tired "universal bishop" argument shows that you are misinformed on this topic. You equate apostolic succession with all authority. It isn't the case.

Quote:No actually,It is not vague in the least. Indeed I found these beliefs to supersede St.Gregory Palamas and was widely held by the eastern Patriarchs and shown to be apostolic in character. Now if Doctrine does develop we destroy our Tradition, truly Tradition is superior to Novelty, Even if the pope is the one to introduce them. Now, even IF doctrinal development  was true we can't have it contradicting former belief. How does it go from "The Father Alone" to "The Father and Son Alone"? The Faith does not "Evolve". That is a Modernist belief.

Have you seen the quotes that Palamas extrapolates into his doctrine? Do they really follow that clearly? If doctrine doesn't develop, then there is no need for councils, as it would mean that we already have a perfect understanding of every teaching that exists. You are either ignorant or dishonest in your treatment of the subject.

Quote:Haha, well you probably never looked. No disrespect of course. I do not challenge your intelligence, I know you must have studied a lot. I merely mean how can you say none have spoken with such authority? To challenge me with being merely a monothelist or a Nestorian I would challenge you with being just like the Modernist who worship along with Jews and Mohammedans. 

The problem is this. You want to claim the superiority conciliar authority. Unless you disagree with it. This is the same error of monophysites and nestorians. You don't like Lyons II, so you reject it, despite that so many of your forefathers did. Ditto with Florence. How is this different from the monophysitic rejection of Chalcedon?

Quote:Well, We are both men of Faith. We are not dumb, so to speak, in regards to our faith. Would you agree a pope can not sanction and hold into effect any council that speaks Heresy or Blasphemy? Would we not agree that even if 99% of the church fallowed the teachings of the Modernist, the church would still be for the respect of the few who are left? 

Of course. And no pope has ever bound the Church to such errors.

Quote:Indeed. It wouldn't be the first of said Forgeries. The Donation of Constantine, The Pseudo-Isidore Decretal both come to mind. Quite powerful text and used between 1000-1300 with the utmost devastation. To say that the Latin world never produced a forgery and used it to defend it's claim is clearly contradicting plain ol' history.Indeed it has been shown quite a few times to be true. Now that is not quite a honest Charge. Latin Text have been largely known to be corrupt.

Yeah, except that the works in question are accepted by all the Easterners I know.

Quote:God bless you and may God reveal to you his truth, When you hear his voice, Do not harden your heart.
St.Ambrose the Servant of the servants of God

Amen, sir. And one more item. I know many Easterners. We have many good discussions on these subjects. There are robust arguments to be made for the Eastern position. You have presented none of them. This is acknowledged by your own brethren. Step away from the polemic. Look deeper. Think harder. Pray even harder than that.
Reply
#28
The Orthodox Church is just plainly pathetic. Really.

I mean, I can't understand how one can intellectually remain an orthodox christian after reading some Church history and the Bible. The same for Protestants.

There's a lot of self-deceit going on.

Reply
#29
The Constantinople Patriarch has its days numbered because of Turkish restrictions, eventually the patriarch will have to move to Greece.

Reply
#30
Forget philosophy, Scripture proves that "He proceedeth from the Father and the Son."

John 15:26
But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Commentary from the D-R:
"Whom I will send"... This proves, against the modern Greeks, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, as well as from the Father: otherwise he could not be sent by the Son.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)