Replies

“That is true, there is the catholic church, but that is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. They are two different things

I’m sure you believe so, but that doesn’t make it so. The “catholic church” is the Catholic Church. Where do you think the Creed came from?”

Pretty much from a group of Greek speaking Eastern Bishops listed to this day in our dyptichs, not Rome’s, from whose spiritual descendants the pope of Rome broke, in great measure, over the later filioque innovation. As we all know, the filioque is 100% Rome’s responsibility. Is that what you meant when you made your comment about the Creed? In all honesty, for “Roman Catholicism” to claim, as it does, that it alone is the Catholic Church of the 1st century is complete nonsense. In fact, when we Orthodox hear it, well its sort of embarrassing in the way the public remarks of the odd uncle in the family are. You love him, he’s family...but sometimes you just wish he’d shut up.

BTW, I love watching your family fights! :)

...its sort of embarrassing in the way the public remarks of the odd uncle in the family are. You love him, he’s family...but sometimes you just wish he’d shut up.

I think that might make you guys the crazy aunt who interrupts with "her own facts," all in a jumble, with whom everyone pretends to agree just so she'll stop interrupting.

Is that what you meant when you made your comment about the Creed?

It is time for East-West schism to end -- we are moving closer to that reality with each new day.

But, with that said, the Nicene Creed dates as you know to the year 325, and the East-West schism does not begin officially until 1054, with the mutual excommunication. The matter of the Filioque is I think a distraction in the context of this discussion, because the focus of the matter is on the catholic and apostolic nature of the Church, as specified in the Creed, irregardless of one's theological position with regard differences on Christology between the East and West.

God bless.

“BTW, I love watching your family fights! :)”

“snicker”

It’s certainly not funny nor anything to snicker about when one is on a ME site and the Orthodox Christians STRONGLY take the side of Muslims, especially the Kurds, over the Armenian, Chaldean, and Coptic Catholics on the forum. It’s a sad thing to witness and I’ve seen it often...

Pretty much from a group of Greek speaking Eastern Bishops listed to this day in our dyptichs, not Rome’s

Actually, don't the Coptics say that this was first preached by the Patriarch of Alexandria? So wouldn't he have been Coptic speaking? Though, of course Greek was the lingua franca of the East so it could have been Greek it was first taught in.

Long before Martin Luther was ever born, the dispute over the catholicity of Rome existed. It still does today. Rome's claims have always been at best extravagant. I would think that Rome would be reluctant to base someone’s church identification on the date of a church's origin. If that were true, I would think that they would all be Eastern Orthodox. If Rome claims primacy based upon St Peter and St Paul, then what of Jerusalem?

I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying the same thing that I did, namely the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as the catholic faith. Did I misunderstand you?

You do not have to be Roman Catholic to subscribe to the ecumenical or catholic creeds. As you pointed out, Rome changed the Nicene Creed with the filoque. There are differences in Christology and the issue of icons.

Let us not forget that Pope Honorius was condemned by the Council of Constantinople II as a heretic. Then you have the problem of three different popes both claiming Peter's Chair at the same time. Everyone in Europe was excommunicated at least twice. The silliness just goes on and on and on.