Posted on 06/30/2003 2:53:51 PM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY Pope John Paul II again reached out to the Orthodox Church on Sunday, saying his efforts at reconciliation weren't just "ecclesiastic courtesy" but a sign of his profound desire to unite the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.
John Paul made the comments during his regular appearance to pilgrims and tourists in St. Peter's Square. Later Sunday, he welcomed a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople at a traditional Mass marking the feast day of St. Peter and St. Paul.
"The exchange of delegations between Rome and Constantinople, for the respective patron feasts, goes beyond just an act of ecclesiastic courtesy," the pontiff said. "It reflects the profound and rooted intention to re-establish the full communion between East and West."
John Paul has made improving relations with the Orthodox Church a hallmark of his nearly 25-year papacy, visiting several mostly Orthodox countries and expressing regret for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Orthodox Christians.
Despite his efforts at healing the 1,000-year-old schism, he hasn't yet visited Russia because of objections from the Russian Orthodox Church.
During the Mass on Sunday, 42 new archbishops received the pallium, a band of white wool decorated with black crosses that symbolizes their bond with the Vatican. Two of the archbishops received the pallium in their home parishes; the rest took part in the Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
Your Christian charity is overwhelming.
You folks are truly perverse in your slander and misrepresentation!
Where, o, where did I say the Turks should have wiped out the Greeks?
Were there justice in the world for the Greeks, Mazinkert would have gone the other way, 1204 would never have happened, and 1922 would have been successful.
You will find no more fervent enemy of the Muslim Turks and friend of the Christian Greeks than I. I would love nothing better than to see Anatolian Greece restored.
This is not our liturgy.
The Eastern mind at work!
Again, how is pointing out Stalin was poised for attack "excusing" Hitler for attacking? Understanding? Yes. Excusing? No.
Second, again, where did the Pope express support for Hitler's war? Was it when he refused to bless the French crusaders rushing off to join the Wehrmacht? Maybe when he condmened Hitlerism in his Radio addresses?
Again you are incorrect. Sorry.
You're going to have to explain your post then
Complete the quote: "and embrace Islam." That's what so many Orthodox did. That's why there are so many "Turks" who look like Greeks.
The Archbishop is such a well educated and polite man. He even invited BOTH New York Senators to his installation not too long ago. One is Jewish and the other is a she-devil.
When asked why, he said it would be rude not to invite them as he had invited all the Congressmen from the area and NYC Mayor and the NY Governor as well.
You know what? YOU are a CREEP.... big time.
This statement marks you as embacile...especially in age where most former Catholic countries have bulging islamics populations, many converting and many leaving catholicism...here, Im sure you not aware of the Blood Tax...the taking of each first born male in each family in Balkans to serve Turkish as Janissery....??? No? Sure you know, you choose stupid arguement as scare tactic for Orthodox to run to all knowing, all loving corruption in Rome, no thanks. We survived 1000 years of Catholic war, we survive 1300 years of Islamic war, we survive 70 years Soviets...your scare tactic stupid...now let see who survive and prosper in next 100 years....odds against you...clean your own house.
Problem is, they not let us and won't. We beat them back, occassionally beat them down but they come back like stupid children. They not figure out after 1000 years that we want to be left alone...no they not get that point. Like little worker ants lead by queen...mindlessly trying to convert those who don't want their attentions or corrupt teaching.
The doctrine behind this word finds plenty of support in the East. If you wish to deny it, you'll have to throw out any notion of union in faith not only with all of the West prior to 1054, which I'm sure you will plainly admit upheld this from Apostolic antiquity, but also many illsutrious men of the East. Certainly, none in the east thought the west heretical for using it for hundreds of years until Patriarch St. Photius (who died in union with Rome), stirred up trouble with the help of this word.
The only-begotten Holy Spirit has neither the name of the Son nor the appelation of Father, but is called Holy Spirit, and is not foreign to the Father. For the Only-begotten Himself calls Him: "the Spirit of the Father," and says of Him the "He proceeds from the Father," and "will receive of mine," so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit divine, ... of God, and He is God. For he is Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son of the Father and of the Son, a third by appelation
....
The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor is the Spirit created.
-St. Epiphanius of Salamis, The Man Well-Anchored, 8 & 75 (374 AD)Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that He is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it.
-St. Cyril of Alexandria, The Treasury of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, Thesis 34, (423-425 AD)The peculiar relationship of the Son to the Father, such as we know it - we will find that the Spirit has this, to the Son. And since the Son says, "everything whatsoever that the Father has is Mine," we will discover all these things also in the Spirit, through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased," so also is the Spirit of the Son; for the Apostle says, "He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying 'Abba! Father!'"
-St. Athanasius, 3rd Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 1 (360 AD)Those of the Queen of cities (Constantinople) have attacked the synodic letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology (of the Trinity) and, according to them, says: "The Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis (ekporeuesthai) from the Son". The other deals with the divine incarnation.
With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence...
They (the Romans) have therefore been accused of precisely those things which it would be wrong to accuse them, whereas the former (the Byzantines) have been accused of those things of which it has been quite correct to accuse them (Monothelitism). They have up till now produced no defence, although they have not yet rejected the things that they have themselves so wrongly introduced.
In accordance with your request, I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them [the 'also from the son'] in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodic letter] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to do this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot. In any case, having been accused, they will certainly take some care about this.
-St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, PG 91, 136The Spirit of the Word is like a love of the Father for the mysteriously begotten Word, and it is the same love that the beloved Word and Son of the Father has for the one who begot him. That love comes from the Father at the same time as it is with the Son and it naturally rests on the Son.
-St. Gregory Palamas, Chapters, 36, PG 150:1144D-1145A
Do you wish to dig yourself deeper into this hole? The Latin Church says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. We hold this equivalent in meaning to saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The only thing we cannot abide is denying any role at all for the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be from the Father alone, for the He loses His distinction from the Son, who is from the Father alone. So we say the Holy Spirit proceeds ineffably from the Father and consubstantially through the Son.
When Constantinople said "proceeds from the Father", they did not say "does not proceed from the Son" or "proceeds from the Father alone". The entire modern Orthodox argument following Photius (which not all Orthodox do) is one from silence.
Of course, even more troubling for the Orthodox is the necessity of rejecting part of the 2nd Council of Constantinople to uphold the Filioque, which says:
We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers . . . Hilary . . . Ambrose . . . Augustine . . . Leo and their writings on the true faith.
-Constantinople II, Acta, Session I
Why? Because these Holy men taught the filioque! Either their writings were not on the true faith, in which case the Council of Constantinople is made false and lying, or they were, and Photius' polemical writings are seen for the nonsense that they are.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, I ought not to remain silent, nor yet is it necessary to speak. Still, on account of those who do not know Him, it is not possible for me to be silent. However it is necessary to speak of Him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, His Sources.
-St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trintiy, 2, 29 (356 to 359 AD)Know, then, that just as the Father is the Fount of Life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the Fount of Life. It is said, for example, that with You, Almighty God, Your Son is the Fount of Life, that is, the Fount of the Holy Spirit.
-St. Ambrose of Milan, The Holy Spirit, 1, 15, 152 (381 AD)For whatever the Son has, He has from the Father, certainly He has it from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him ... For the Father alone is not from another, for which reason He alone is called unbegotten, not, indeed, in the Scriptures, but in the practice of theologians, and of those who employ such terms as they are able in a matter so great. The Son, however, is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds principally from the Father, and since the Father gives to the Son all that He has without any interval of time, the Holy Spirit proceeds jointly from both Father and Son. He would be called Son of the Father and of the Son if, which is abhorent to everyone of sound mind, they had both begotten Him. The Spirit was not begotten by each, however, but proceeds from each and both.
-St. Augustine of Hippo, The Trinity, 15, 26, 47 (400 to 416 AD)Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed form Him when He showed Himself to His disciples after His resurrection He would not have breathed on them, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit." For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them, except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him?
-St. Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 99,7 (416 and 417 AD)For while the Son is the Only-begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, not as any creature, which is also of the Father and of the Son, but as living and having power with both, and eternally subsisting of that which is of the Father and of the Son.
-Pope St. Leo I, Sermons 75,3 (ante 461 AD)
Are you going to read all of these Saints out of the Orthodox Church too? Will you no longer venerate them because they taught the filioque "heresy"? (And they aren't the only ones.)
Drop the filioque clause, and get some of your priests married off.
I believe that the real bone of contention is not the Primacy of "Ultimate Authority", which I believe the Orthodox would readily grant, but of "Immediate Ordinary Jurisdiction".
Fr. Schmemann again: "... the essence and purpose of this primacy is to express and preserve the unity of the Church in faith and life; to express and preserve the unanimity of the Churches; to keep them from isolating themselves from the unity of life. It means ultimately to assume the care, the solicitude of the Churches so that each one of them can abide in that fulness which is always the whole catholic tradition and not any 'part' of it." ("The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology", The Primacy of Peter, 2nd ed. 1973, p. 49)
1000 years under the thumb of an Emperor and 500 more under the tight screws of a infidel Sultan, followed by a final Massacre by atheist dictators would tend to do that.
I dare you to find the filioque clause in the original Nicean Creed--I double dare you.
With the addition of the filioque clause the Frankish Popes did the EXACT same thing Luther did, a heresy. No difference.
No, the Pope cannot do that, because he is preserved from teaching error as a Christian dogma. That is the meaning of Papal Infallibility. It is no different than the Infallibility of the Councils. Is it a fare argument to make towards the Orthodox that if a Council embraced re-incarnation, it would be okay?
Still awaiting an Orthodox to address how to avoid future Ephesian Robber Synod's with no Papal authority to put the kibbosh on them.
Drop the filioque clause, and get some of your priests married off.
We won't repudiate the teaching of the Fathers from the beginning.
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.