Posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:18 AM PDT by kosta50
Perhaps you forgot that the Church in the Diocese of the East and in Persia used Aramaic, not Greek.
To: Graves; Petrosius
I believe you may want to double check that statement.
Sure on that?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02172a.htm
I stand corrected
In other words, those who leave the unity of the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
The dogma does not speak to the fate of those who were never inside.
"his [St. James'] lack of instructions" assumes facts not in evidence.
You are trying to make a case from nothing. According to the Tradition of the Church, azymes are not permitted. We have a positive statement to that efect in one of the canons of the Council in Trullo. And then on top of that we have the reference in Canon 32 to the Liturgy of St. James and how it came into being. What you have is your unswerving devotion to wafer worship. That is why we call you folks azymites.
Why didn't +Photius complain about the use of unleavened bread then? You are reading into the canon. It is talking about bread "of the Jews", not "of the Western Catholics". Trullo, when it singles out the Romans on the use of marriage by clerics and Saturday fasting, explicitly does so. It would be a departure from the custom of the council to have made no reference to the Western practice, if that was what was condemned.
Besides, if true, the council in Trullo would not have been received in the West, so how can it be authoritative? Simply repeating its authority as a mantra doesn't make it so. The Nestorians still think Ephesus 449 is an infallible witness to the 'Tradition' of the Church and, if your interpretation of Trullo is correct, you'd be little better off than them.
your unswerving devotion to wafer worship
Jack Chick redivivus?
When Rome thought that the difference was to its advantage, it condemned the usage of leavened bread and thought it mattered. When it became to its advantage to allow the use of leavened bread (even then, it claimed that the Eastern practice was tolerable but not strictly correct), then Rome became latitudinarian on the issue.
I'm not familiar with the details of this controversy, and it may be that the Orthodox Church will decide that leavened and unleavened bread alike were of apostolic usage and are equally acceptable practices -- just as we believe that clerical celibacy and non-celibacy were both apostolic practices.
To me, it is just one more thing -- like the filioque, Papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility, clerical celibacy -- where the tradition of the many churches of the East are united and different from that of Rome. And yet many Roman polemicists claim that their teachings were universal and apostolic, and that somehow the East lost these teachings without a trace and without any record of controversy.
I don't believe that's correct. The Catholic Encyclopedia claims otherwise ("There was, however, but little cause for bitterness on the Latin side, as the Western Church has always maintained the validity of consecration with either leavened or unleavened bread"), and St. Leo IX's letter to Michael Cerularius, although it opposes their condemnation of the Western use of azymes, doesn't seem to attack the use of unleavened bread from the exercepts I have of it.
Show me where Trullo was accepted by the entire Church, east and west, before 1054.
The teaching of the Church is that the Council in Trullo was a continuation of the Fifth Council that dealt with matters left unfinished at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. All of the canons in Trullo were confirmed at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
The Fifth Ecumenical Council was in 553, i.e. 139 years before the Council in Trullo in 692. The Sixth Ecumenical Council could not have confirmed Trullo because it closed eleven years before it in 681.
Yeh, me and the rest of the Church are "reading into".
Yeah, you and only the Orthodox Church. Again, so me where this interpretation was universally accepted before 1054.
It's the Tradition that's infallible...
And yet you can so me no Tradition before the Schism that condemns the use of unleavened bread.
Again, show me where this interpretation was universally accepted before 1054.
Poor proofreading strikes again :-{
This was the view of the Council of Blachernae in 1285, and of St. Gregory Palamas.
I can't see how though, the restriction of the substantial (but not hypostatic existence) procession to the Father alone can be squared with the understanding of the Alexandrians, especially St. Cyril. There seems some confusion on that site, for they note:
"In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, 'the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son'""2. eternal energetic procession (eternal manifestation): from the Father through the Son. This one denotes the common substance or ïõóßá (ousia) which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or õðüóôáóéò (hypostasis) receives from the Son"
I thought the entire point of Palamas' doctrine was a real distinction between substance and energy, so that int he Trinity there is three hypostases, one substance, and one energy. Then they turn around and say the energetic procession is the substantial procession!
At Florence, it was stated:
"The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto."
This really seems to be the critical point - the Filioque must not be used to deny the Father the Monarchia.
In light of this, tt seems to me that the correct meaning must be this. The Father is the sole cause of the hypostatic existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son by generation, the Holy Spirit by procession. The distinction between the two, so that there are not two Sons or two Spirits, is that the procession of the Spirit can only take place in the context of the Son being generated, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds through and from the Son, who communicates by that process together with the Father the substance and energy of the Godhead to the Holy Spirit.
The Son does not cause and is not the source of the hypostatic existence of the Spirit, but instead gives the Spirit the differentiation in the hypostasis of the Spirit being Spirit and not Son because the generation of the Son's hypostatic existence necessarily causes the hypostatic existence of the Spirit. Thus phrases like the Father generates the Son by breathing His Spirit through Him, the Sonis the projector of the Spirit, etc.
Jack Chick redivivus?
ping 371
Right, because it was accepted by the Apostolic See.
They are not automatically accepted from day one as Ecumenical or as God-inspired.
Compare this view with the confidence of the Council Fathers of Chalcedon, in their letter to Pope St. Leo:
For if where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he says he is in the midst of them, how great an intimacy will he show in regard to the five hundred and twenty priests, who have preferred to both native land and to labor the knowledge of confession for him. Over these you ruled as a head over the members, among those holding office, displaying your good will.
Azymes were universally used in the West for over two centuries, with full knowledge of the Greeks, before the 'heresy' was condemned.
"'And yet we(you & I), accept [the Council of Chalcedon] as God-inspired.' Right, because it was accepted by the Apostolic See."
Hey, if that works for you Pope-worshipping azymites, fine by me. I could care less. The point is that this was a God-inspired Council. So quit messing around with the Eutychians and the Nestorians by praying with them and by permitting them to receive your sacraments. If you are going to call a council Ecumenical, at least have the decency to obey it. But you can't even seem to manage to follow the First Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople without screwing up. So get your heads straightened out. After you do that, then come to us with your union schemes
Let me get this straight. Two hundred years after the Latins start using unleavened bread the Greeks decide that it is heretical. Then the Greeks declare that the heretical Latins are no longer in the the Church. Step three, now that the Greeks are the only ones remaining in the Church they use the unanimity of their belief to show that the condemnation of the use of unleavened bread by the Latins was infallible. Nice trick. Have you ever been hired to count the ballots in Chicago?
"...Have you ever been hired to count the ballots in Chicago?"
As has been pointed out by a number of historians such as Runciman, logistical considerations were a major factor back then. A lot of stuff going on in the West, the eastern patriarchates did not know of. In fact, a lot of stuff going in the West was news to Rome itself. It took centuries, about 200-400 years, for Rome to catch on to the results of the Council of Toledo of 589. The West was a huge patriarchate and we're talking about the Dark Ages here. Civilization was in chaos in the West. Only in the East, within the Empire at least, were the lines of communication intact. Outside of the Empire, it was a real mess.
Step 1: the Greeks alone declare the Latins to be heretical.The same three step is used to declare Trullo an Ecumenical Council.Step 2: the Greeks declare that the heretical Latins are no longer in the Church.
Step 3: the Greeks, as the only remaining members of the Church, use the unanimity of their belief to declare Step 1 to be infallible.
In fact, however, the very opposite occured due to this. As St. Firmilian of Caesarea noted in the third century:
For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all;
The Greeks do this and the Greeks do that? Want me to call for a wahmbulence?
But seriously, by Greeks you refer to our four patriarchates against your measly pathetic one that's headquartered in that backwater cesspool of a town called Rome. Majority rule. We win and you lose. Gee, why that's real tough nuggies fella. Take it to the chaplain's office. Have the chaplain punch your TS card. Maybe they'll even honor it down at the grocery store.
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.