Posted on 11/03/2015 12:52:49 PM PST by Trumpinator
“I posted sourced links. Thanks.”
Are you seriously claiming “The Conciliar Anglican” blog rates as “ACTUAL HISTORICAL SOURCES” or an “actual historical primary source or even a reputable secondary source”?
Seriously? And how does it help you when it says NOTHING about the use of the Filioque in England in the Middle Ages EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW IT WAS USED AS I DEMONSTRATED WITH ACTUAL PRIMARY SOURCES???
Before that you linked to Aidan Hart’s article on Theodore. Aidan Hart is painter (Icon Writer). And all he does is essentially reaffirm what I said about Theodore - he introduced Filioque into England. So?
And then you posted this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/saints/andrew.shtml
So you posted 16 or 17 times in this thread altogether and mentioned only three sources or posted three links that I can see on a quick check and none of them prove anything against what I said. Not a thing. You linked to an Anglican blog which said nothing in your favor on what we discussed. You linked to an article by a painter (!) who said nothing in your favor about what we discussed. You linked to a website about BBC website about St. Andrew which changed nothing about anything that was said.
A Catholic Apologia book is a blog with paper.
“A Catholic Apologia book is a blog with paper.”
I didn’t cite any Catholic Apologetics books. Not even one.
Also, a published book - one published by the reputable company - is head and shoulders above any average blog.
What you posted in no way changes the truth of anything I said. Everything I said was correct, true, factual. You posted a page from a book that doesn’t say anything that overturns any of the facts I posted.
Filioque was introduced into England BY A GREEK Bishop in the 7th century.
Filioque appeared in the Anglo-Saxon version of the Creed.
Filioque was commonly used and understood in England CENTURIES BEFORE the Norman Conquest.
All of this was shown to be true using primary and reputable secondary sources - including those in Latin and at least one in Anglo-Saxon.
Thus, any Eastern Orthodox attempt to say otherwise must logically be considered an attempt at refuting reality.
Nothing you can say or post will change any of that. Enjoy!
The non-Orthodox are more than welcome to participate. The only real limitation is we don’t do inter-communion.
If you want to have the ultimate spiritual experience, make a visit to Mount Athos and spend a week in one of the monasteries there. Down in Greece, many professionals make the pilgrimage to the Holy Mountain once a year. As a Latin, you will be allowed to go there.
Thank you both.
Per my link above - it does seem the qualifier added by the said Greek Bishop for the reasons stated. Thanks.
Again, what you posted in no way changes the truth of anything I said. Everything I said was correct, true, factual. You posted a page from a book that doesn’t say anything that overturns any of the facts I posted.
Filioque was introduced into England BY A GREEK Bishop in the 7th century.
Filioque appeared in the Anglo-Saxon version of the Creed.
Filioque was commonly used and understood in England CENTURIES BEFORE the Norman Conquest.
All of this was shown to be true using primary and reputable secondary sources - including those in Latin and at least one in Anglo-Saxon.
Thus, any Eastern Orthodox attempt to say otherwise must logically be considered an attempt at refuting reality.
Nothing you can say or post will change any of that. Enjoy!
I see my views on the matter of the Orthodoxy of late Saxon England have been overly influenced by the scholarship of Vladimir Moss, whose views on the matter are less well-supported than I had believed — in particular the Jatvadar Saga makes clear that most of the Saxon refugees who fled to Constantinople preferred the Latin churches maintained by the Hungarians in the City. I happily walk back my views on the matter to be at best speculations, rather than facts.
On the other hand, in my readings over the last few days, I came upon a fact which bears on your original post: the Stowe Missal in its original manuscript lacked the filioque, which was added later in a different hand. The dating of the original manuscript makes clear that a claim to the Orthodoxy of the Irish church is entirely reasonable into at least the late 8th century or early 9th century, so pilgrimages to ancient Orthodox monasteries in Ireland are actually things one can do.
Thus, I repeat, with at least the fact of the Stowe Missal and the fact the Russian church was subject to Constantinople throughout the 11th century in support: we Orthodox have a better claim to the pre-schism saints of the British Isles than you Latins do to those post-schism Russian saints you include in your calendar.
“I see my views on the matter of the Orthodoxy of late Saxon England have been overly influenced by the scholarship of Vladimir Moss, whose views on the matter are less well-supported than I had believed — in particular the Jatvadar Saga makes clear that most of the Saxon refugees who fled to Constantinople preferred the Latin churches maintained by the Hungarians in the City. I happily walk back my views on the matter to be at best speculations, rather than facts.”
Fair enough. Do more digging and you’ll find more of what I call “Orthodox wishful thinking” about history. I’m not saying that to be mean. It’s just true. Also, I think it pays to be wary of people like Anthony Edward St. George Moss - aka Vladimir Moss. I think that Orthodoxy has a tendency in the West to attract the quixotic. And the very things that make those people quixotic also make them somewhat unreliable as historians. The simple fact is the Normans and Anglo-Saxons worshiped the same God, used similar liturgies, said the same creed, and shared the same Eucharist - both before and AFTER 1054 AND 1066. Orthodox theories about an EASTERN Orthodox Church in the WEST are simply wrong. Anachronism is not history. An Irish Catholic in 1053 was just as orthodox (and Catholic!) as and Greek Christian in 1053. It was one universal Church. It was Catholic and Orthodox. A Greek Christian could receive the Eucharist in Rome or Iceland for that matter in 1053 - and a number of years later as well believe it or not.
I salute you for going back and checking things out.
“On the other hand, in my readings over the last few days, I came upon a fact which bears on your original post: the Stowe Missal in its original manuscript lacked the filioque, which was added later in a different hand.”
And? 1) The Stowe Missal is IRISH - not Anglo-Saxon so it really has no bearing on what we’re talking about. 2) the fact that the Stowe Missal originally lacked the Filioque tells us nothing about the men who compiled it. Now, in your next comment we’ll see more of the “Orthodox wishful thinking”:
“The dating of the original manuscript makes clear that a claim to the Orthodoxy of the Irish church is entirely reasonable into at least the late 8th century or early 9th century, so pilgrimages to ancient Orthodox monasteries in Ireland are actually things one can do.”
Incredible. This is what you’re actually claiming: Irish monks were not Catholic, but Orthodox in the 8th century because they used one version of the creed (just as it was used in the East) and not the version of the creed which was JUST AT THAT TIME becoming common throughout the Western Christian world of which Ireland was at the furthest extent. That is tortured and ridiculous thinking. It is much more logical to simply believe they were what they would attest to be: Catholics. They were Catholics who used the creed they knew, the Creed they had been taught, the Creed they had copied, and saw no reason when compiling the Stowe Missal to use one they were less familiar with since they sat at the edge of the Western Christian world. This is why:
“The Filioque interpolation did not reach Gaul for several centuries. When it did so, moreover, it came from Ireland and England rather than from Spain. Inexplicably, the Stowe Missal of the Celtic Church gives the Latin Creed “almost exactly in the form of the Council of Chalcedon, but the filioque has been added by a later hand.”
Not if it were me saying that you might not care, but it is in the introduction to Photios I’s On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery in 1983. So, it seems to me, that the Stowe Missal is what it always has been in other ways - a strange, almost out-of-the-blue document. In other words, it’s much like the first Bible printed in Orthodox Russia - printed by the Russian Orthodox Archbishop Gennady relied on the Vulgate for 11 of its books for translation. That’s a historical surprise but it doesn’t tell us too much. See James H Billington’s The Icon and the Axe (page 85).
“Thus, I repeat, with at least the fact of the Stowe Missal and the fact the Russian church was subject to Constantinople throughout the 11th century in support: we Orthodox have a better claim to the pre-schism saints of the British Isles than you Latins do to those post-schism Russian saints you include in your calendar.”
No. 1) I think your constant beating of the drum about “the fact the Russian church was subject to Constantinople throughout the 11th century” is still just as empty and unimportant as it always was. We’re talking about the Anglo-Saxons, not Russians after all. Also, no matter how much you might wish the Greek influence to have been strong in Russia you still have the riddle of the 17th century religious reforms to deal with. How can it be that the Greek influence was so powerful in the 11th century that the Russians would need reforms in the 17th century to conform more to Greek practice? Seriously, how did they forget to bless with the right number of fingers as the Greeks did if Greek influence was soooo strong just 500 years earlier? How can an entire Church’s priests forget how many fingers to use in giving a blessing? How???? Well, for one thing, it turns out everything about the pre-Nikon Church in Russia was more messy and complicated than thought. The pre-Nikonian liturgical practices, for instance, may have been more ancient Byzantine practices closer to the earlier Byzantine usages than some later Greek customs which Nikon championed. That’s not according to me. That’s according to Russian Orthodox historians.
The “pre-schism” saints were Catholic - in East and West. They were also considered Orthodox - in East and West (pre-1054). They used a Western language and followed many Western practices and freely circulated all over the Catholic world - which included every square inch of what someone might call the Orthodox world since the two were completely synonymous before 1054. There’s nothing at all anachronistic in what I am saying. But you are being anachronistic in insisting Catholics were not Catholic but Orthodox as a post 1054 Eastern Orthodox believer would envision that. What I am saying is not only entirely sound historically, but it also is backed up with common sense.
And you, in turn are being anachronistic in claiming that the Orthodox in the West before the schism were not Orthodox — read your own post #3. This all got started with you posting against the comment in the original article about a pious Orthodox woman going to venerate ancient Orthodox monasteries in Ireland — I applied the filioque-free original text of the Stowe missal to your original post.
If you read carefully I did not claim the Stowe Missal supported the speculative Orthodoxy of late Saxon Britain. (Until I can vet one way or the other Moss’s claim that St. Dunstan’s coronation rite was Orthodox in content I will still allow the Orthodoxy of at least the late Saxon court as a live, though hardly well-established, possibility, considering the indisputable fact that Harold II’s daughter went to Kiev and married Prince Vladimir Monomach.)
Observe that unlike you, I never made an assertion of non-catholicity about anyone, especially not British Christians prior to the late 11th century (though implicitly my firm insistence on the patristic use of “Latins” represents an expression of our claim that what is now called the Orthodox Church is, in fact, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from which the Patriarchate of Rome separated itself in the 11th century). It is only you who fancy that applying the descriptor “Orthodox” to Irish monks who prayed the original Creed sans filioque is saying they were not “Catholic”. It is only you who add Eastern in all caps after I have written “Orthodox”.
You doubtless have a better knowledge of Western ecclesiastical history than I, but your insistence on replying to things I did not write by adding adjectives that were absent from my posts, and shouting (as all caps signifies on the internet) as if doing so makes your Western view of the schism and the denotation of the words catholic and orthodox somehow correct, together with your evident hostility toward the Holy Orthodox Church, makes discussion with you about ecclesiastical matters tedious, rather than edifying.
“And you, in turn are being anachronistic in claiming that the Orthodox in the West before the schism were not Orthodox — read your own post #3.”
Nope. The Anglo-Saxon Christians clearly looked to the Bishop of Rome for leadership in theological matters. This was made clear in Bede’s telling of the Synod of Whitby. Even when the so-called “Celtic Christians” were called to account there they too admitted it. Thus, until 1054, they were all Catholic and all Orthodox in the sense that there was one faith and they all admitted it. What they were not was Orthodox - as if that meant they were not Catholic. See, I am actually being much more open minded and fair minded than you are in this matter. I freely admit they were all Catholics - East and West. I freely admit they were all Orthodox - East and West. What they were not was not Catholic which is what you’re essentially claiming when you say they were Orthodox. In other words, you’re sounding a lot more like a Donatist than anything else.
“This all got started with you posting against the comment in the original article about a pious Orthodox woman going to venerate ancient Orthodox monasteries in Ireland — I applied the filioque-free original text of the Stowe missal to your original post.”
No. This all started because I posted a comment NOT against a woman going to “Orthodox” monasteries in Ireland (for there are probably such monasteries in Ireland founded since the 1970s) but pointed out ancient Irish monasteries were all Catholic. Period. They were established by Irish monks trained by the likes of St. Patrick - who was a Romano-Celt from England/Wales and who acknowledged the Bishop of Rome. As such St. Patrick could have ministered anywhere in his time - including Greece if he wished - and been accounted Catholic and Orthodox. What he wasn’t was Orthodox to the exclusion of being Catholic.
“If you read carefully I did not claim the Stowe Missal supported the speculative Orthodoxy of late Saxon Britain.”
Speculative Orthodoxy? My goodness, what a phrase.
“(Until I can vet one way or the other Moss’s claim that St. Dunstan’s coronation rite was Orthodox in content I will still allow the Orthodoxy of at least the late Saxon court as a live, though hardly well-established, possibility, considering the indisputable fact that Harold II’s daughter went to Kiev and married Prince Vladimir Monomach.)”
You tie yourself into a pretzel. It’s simple: before 1054, they were all Catholic and all Orthodox. After 1054, they were still Catholic and always orthodox, just not Eastern Orthodox because the Eastern Orthodox would have none of it. And, by the way, Filioque, when properly understood is perfectly orthodox - orthodox enough that even some Orthodox have said so. You make a HUGE historical error by pinning your “Orthodox wishful thinking” hopes on the coronation oath of anyone! I already showed - with documentation and citations - that bishops used the Filioque in their consecration Masses. You seem to be soooooo hung up on this - a grasping at straws really - that you can’t seem to see it doesn’t change anything. Even if a king or a bishop used a Filioque-less oath it changes nothing. How do I know? Two reasons: 1) I’ve done it myself. That’s right, when I attend a Divine Liturgy and the Filioque-less creed is used it changes nothing about my Catholicity or my orthodoxy anymore than using a Filioque worded creed does. 2) As we have already seen sometimes one version sometimes another version of the creed was used. What mattered were the essentials and no one apparently thought Filioque needed to be removed nor that it was the end of the world if it was added. Why? Because it you’re orthodox (rather than post-1054 Orthodox) then you get it. And if you don’t, you’re just wrong on the issue anyway.
“Observe that unlike you, I never made an assertion of non-catholicity about anyone, especially not British Christians prior to the late 11th century (though implicitly my firm insistence on the patristic use of “Latins†represents an expression of our claim that what is now called the Orthodox Church is, in fact, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from which the Patriarchate of Rome separated itself in the 11th century).”
Since the Church of Rome is the heart of the Church there is no way for it to separate itself from itself. This is tacitly admitted by Eastern Orthodox Christians when they admit they cannot have an Ecumenical Council without the Church of Rome. Ecumenical Councils can be held without any of the Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy showing up and has been and probably will be again. The very idea that the heart of the Church could separate itself from itself is bizarre. The simple fact is the so-called Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople could fall off the face of the earth tomorrow and few would really notice. He probably has more followers in Brazil than he does in Turkey.
“It is only you who fancy that applying the descriptor “Orthodox†to Irish monks who prayed the original Creed sans filioque is saying they were not “Catholicâ€. It is only you who add Eastern in all caps after I have written “Orthodoxâ€.”
I’m precise and accurate. A woman who thinks Irish monks were Orthodox - and certainly she must mean Orthodox as she understands it - is simply wrong. St. Patrick was not an Eastern Orthodox. Also, you’re making a mistake here in assuming that they did NOT use Filioque in the their creed. Even the Stowe Missal doesn’t prove that’s the case for all monks in early Christian Ireland. We also have no records of anyone complaing about Filioque being used - and it most certainly was used later if not earlier. Also, even if it wasn’t used in the creed, that doesn’t mean they disagreed with the idea. Orthodox wishful thinking is not the same thing as facts. And so far all you have is conjecture and very little in the way of facts.
“You doubtless have a better knowledge of Western ecclesiastical history than I, but your insistence on replying to things I did not write by adding adjectives that were absent from my posts,”
Again, I am precise and accurate. Orthodox wishful thinking is inherently INaccurate and IMprecise.
“and shouting (as all caps signifies on the internet)”
I use caps TO MAKE A POINT. I don’t usually waste my time with html for bold. I usually just put it caps. I don’t care how anyone feels about it either.
“as if doing so makes your Western view of the schism and the denotation of the words catholic and orthodox somehow correct,”
Again, I am PRECISE AND ACCURATE. Between the two of us, I have yet to make a mistake in the history of things were talking about and you essentially admitted I even taught you a thing or two. Thus, between the two of us, it makes sense to conclude that my “Western view of the schism and... denotation of the words catholic and orthodox” is correct since I have been right about everything else. Sorry, EVERYTHING ELSE.
“together with your evident hostility toward the Holy Orthodox Church, makes discussion with you about ecclesiastical matters tedious, rather than edifying.”
Except that you said you learned something you did not previously know. Learning is edifying no matter how “tedious” it might be. Orthodox wishful thinking is not learning and is not edifying.
One more small point: You can readily verify that Metropolitans of Kiev (bearing that title even while residing at Vladimir or Moscow) were appointed from Constantinople until the unionist Isidore in the 15h century. The liturgical drift between Russia and Greece from the 11th to the 17th century is irrelevant.
Until de facto autocephaly was established with the deposition of Isidore and the election of Met. Jonah, Kiev was ecclesiastically subject to Constantinople.
If you really want to herd the discussion back to the original topic, both your claim that there was no formal schism between Rome and Russia and my mentioning the Saxons were not to the point. It was about Irish monasteries. Only the Stowe Missal and the fact that you seem to use “Orthodox” as a synonym for the phrase “Greek schismatics” and I use it to mean “confessing the Orthodox Faith, while in communion with the ancient patriarchates (or since the 11th century with the majority of the ancient patriarchates),” as do all Orthodox Christians, have been to the point.
I will take my cue on how to use “Orthodox” not from you, nor from any Western scholar no matter how august their credentials are, but from the saints of the Orthodox Church. St. John Maximovitch spent a great deal of time researching the lives of Orthodox saints who lived in the West before the schism. There is a saying attributed to him that the West will not become Orthodox until we Orthodox venerate the Orthodox saints who were in the West before the schism. You may shout that they were CATHOLIC as often as you want and say that it’s “nonsense” that they were Orthodox. You can shout adjective EASTERN in front of every almost quotation I write about the Orthodox, but I stand with out saints on this matter.
I’ll be in Britain this Spring. I think I’ll make pilgrimages to visit some of our ancient Orthodox sites — making sure to visit ones that existed before Hatfield.
Were I to adopt your mode of reasoning, my reaction to you asserting that the Russian church never went into formal schism with Rome would have been to discount as fallacious your critique of Moss’s position I had adopted regarding the late Saxon church, since your point about Russia was wrong. Instead I checked Moss’s claims and modified my views.
Why don’t you read up on how Metropolitans of Kiev were elected from the time of the conversion of the Rus until the time of the Council of Florence/Ferrar and do the same: modify your views.
And now that I’ve pointed out how we’re talking past each other with different uses of the word “Orthodox”, I would remind you that until the 11th century the Bishops of Rome were by-and-large Orthodox, as we Orthodox use the word (and no, we’re not going to discuss the heretical Pope Honorius now — I’ve read his letter to the heretical Patriarch Sergius in the original Greek, so you can quote scholars and Western ecclesiastics until Jim Rob’s servers melt, I’ll stand with the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumencial Council) — we still use St. Gregory the Dialogist’s Presanctified Liturgy, remember that the original Creed san filoque used to hang in St. Peters, carved in silver, and have a great many pre-schism Popes of Rome in our calendar of saints, so Saxon deference to Rome was not a sign of heterodoxy (yes, that’s the opposite of Orthodoxy, not catholicity or Catholicism) until Rome became heterodox.
Of course, if you insist on using “Orthodox” as a synonym for “Greek schismatic”, then it is a rather boring tautology that no pre-schism or Western Christian was what you call “Orthodox”.
“One more small point: You can readily verify that Metropolitans of Kiev (bearing that title even while residing at Vladimir or Moscow) were appointed from Constantinople until the unionist Isidore in the 15h century.”
And, as I already said - it doesn’t matter. You keep harping on these pet non-points of yours as if they matter. They don’t. If you’re claiming having a Greek “boss” means everyone under him thought like a Greek then you have two huge problems on your hands:
1) Theodore of Tarsus was GREEK. I put it in caps to remind you. He was GREEK. And he used the FILIOQUE. See the problem now with your thinking?
2) If Russia was so darn “Greekified” (yes, I know the word is Hellenized), then why did the Russians forget how many fingers to bless with after centuries and centuries of Greek rule in their Church?
Suddenly your point goes down in flames. . .
“The liturgical drift between Russia and Greece from the 11th to the 17th century is irrelevant.”
Whoa! Who said the drift was between the 11th and 17th centuries? And if we say it was, doesn’t that mean that not just liturgy might have been “drifting”? Either way you have a problem. Remember, for half that time period you still had plenty of Greeks in Russia running big and little shows and yet there was “drift” you say? And what about all those Russian Church historians who say the drift was actually simply a carrying on of EARLIER Byzantine practices? You know better than all those guys, right? You know better than E. E. Golubinsky, Anton V. Kartashev, A. A. Dmitriyevsky and Nikolai Kapterev, right? Kapterev once wrote:”the Russians... had... reasons to have a suspicious attitude towards the Greek piety of that time and even to Greek Orthodoxy itself” and that “Patriarch Nikon should not have had so much faith in the Greek who arrived to Moscow and who advised him to correct our old rites and books.”
“Until de facto autocephaly was established with the deposition of Isidore and the election of Met. Jonah, Kiev was ecclesiastically subject to Constantinople.”
And yet often did it’s own thing. That’s the point.
“I’ll be in Britain this Spring. I think I’ll make pilgrimages to visit some of our ancient Orthodox sites — making sure to visit ones that existed before Hatfield.”
There are no ancient “Orthodox” sites in Britain - well, unless you mean the 1970s.
“Were I to adopt your mode of reasoning, my reaction to you asserting that the Russian church never went into formal schism with Rome would have been to discount as fallacious your critique of Moss’s position I had adopted regarding the late Saxon church, since your point about Russia was wrong. Instead I checked Moss’s claims and modified my views.”
You were wrong. You had to change your view. I made no mistake.
“Why don’t you read up on how Metropolitans of Kiev were elected from the time of the conversion of the Rus until the time of the Council of Florence/Ferrar and do the same: modify your views.”
I have read several hundred books about the Russian Church, medieval history of Rus,etc. I studied Russian, dabbled in Old Church Slavonic, and have no need to change my views since everything I said was correct. This is why I know so well the problem of “Orthodox wishful thinking”. This is why I know Theodore of Tarsus is more important than any oath taken by St. Dunstan. I knew Vladimir Moss was wrong in his view of history more than 15 years ago. You just found out this week according to what you yourself said. It seems pretty clear who between us needs to do more reading of history.
“And now that I’ve pointed out how we’re talking past each other with different uses of the word “Orthodoxâ€, I would remind you that until the 11th century the Bishops of Rome were by-and-large Orthodox, as we Orthodox use the word (and no, we’re not going to discuss the heretical Pope Honorius now — I’ve read his letter to the heretical Patriarch Sergius in the original Greek, so you can quote scholars and Western ecclesiastics until Jim Rob’s servers melt, I’ll stand with the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumencial Council) — we still use St. Gregory the Dialogist’s Presanctified Liturgy, remember that the original Creed san filoque used to hang in St. Peters, carved in silver, and have a great many pre-schism Popes of Rome in our calendar of saints, so Saxon deference to Rome was not a sign of heterodoxy (yes, that’s the opposite of Orthodoxy, not catholicity or Catholicism) until Rome became heterodox.”
And there we have the Orthodox wishful thinking in action in secondary mode. Once an Orthodox sciolist gets a hold on a few facts they make assumptions about everything else. St. Augustine - who according to some of your Eastern Orthodox was orthodox and to other of your Eastern Orthodox was not orthodox because the Eastern Orthodox don’t agree on as much as they claim - was right about the Donatists. Why does that matter? It matters because the Eastern Orthodox are a lot like the Donatists in their attitudes toward reality.
“Of course, if you insist on using “Orthodox†as a synonym for “Greek schismaticâ€, then it is a rather boring tautology that no pre-schism or Western Christian was what you call “Orthodoxâ€.”
Theodore of Tarsus used Filioque. Vladimir Moss was wrong. St. Dunstan’s “oath” doesn’t change anything - even if you could find it.
Those are facts. That’s reality. It isn’t Orthodox wishful thinking.
Read my previous post for the way we Orthodox Christians use the word.
Again, I hope, like the woman in the article, to make pilgrimage to ancient Orthodox sites in Britain the spring. Even if you fill my head with 100 times as many new facts as I have learned from reading every thread on FR I read in the past year, discussing ecclesiastical matters with you is not edifying -- interacting your arrogant way of approaching everything (points on which you are in error are "non-points", but invalidating one point another makes gives you blanket right to regard all other points made as invalid -- even in the verbal blood sport of college debate, you have to actually invalidate each argument point by point) makes the entire exercise spiritually harmful. Of course, that's an imprecise statement I'm sure you'll ignore or belittle it, even though doing so will validate the point.
Good day to you. You can, of course, send another reply to get in the last word. But remember, no new arguments in your final rebuttal.
You have to excuse me, I have to go and sing "O Lord I have cried" at Vespers for the Synaxis of the Holy Archangels, and I will not come back to this thread unless someone else posts to me from it.
“You do realize that you, or even you and a pack of scholars supported by the Pope of Rome, using a word (e.g. “Orthodox”) in a particular way does not objectively fix the meaning of the word in a way that compels everyone else to accept it.”
Pope of Rome? He’s the BISHOP of Rome and Pope of the Church. Apparently the problem with words is yours.
“Again, I hope, like the woman in the article, to make pilgrimage to ancient Orthodox sites in Britain the spring.”
I’m sure you’ll enjoy your visit to the 1970s - bell bottoms and all.
“...but invalidating one point another makes gives you blanket right to regard all other points made as invalid...”
Try not making any mistakes then. It helps when a person actually know what he’s talking about too. Try that in the future.
“Of course, that’s an imprecise statement I’m sure you’ll ignore or belittle it, even though doing so will validate the point.”
Unless the point was invalid from the start - and there’s plenty of reason to believe that.
“But remember, no new arguments in your final rebuttal.”
Actually, I can post as I like as long as it is within the board rules. You have exactly zero say as to how I post.
THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.