Posted on 06/30/2003 2:53:51 PM PDT by NYer
thank you.
Why, thank you. I did enjoy it, as I generally do with her writings.
LOL. Those numbers do matter.
Again, show me a Father who says that. Not a Church Father who mentions the Epiklesis, but one who maintains it must be said for validity of the Eucharist, or that the Words of Christ do not confect the Sacrament of the Most Blessed Eucharist. Show me the Church Council where it is defined. You cannot, that's why you just make wild assertions and provide no proofs.
The Roman Rite has not had an Epiklesis in 1500 years. Your assertion means that the last 500 years East and West was in Communion, the West had no true Mass, nor has it today.
POPPYCOCK! BALONEY!
Will, you, or will you not, follow the words of your own greatest Doctor?
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.
-St. John Chrysostom, On the Betrayal of Judas, Homily 1, 6; PG 49, 380
Have you anymore calumnies against us Tex?
Shame, shame..
Some, notably St. Cyril of Jerusalem, refer the consecration to the action of the Holy Ghost in a way that seems to imply that the Epiklesis is the moment (St. Cyril, Cat. xix, 7; xxi, 3; xxiii, 7, 19; cf. Basil, "De Spir. Sancto," xxvii sqq.); others, as St. John Chrysostom (Hom. i, De prod. Iudæ, 6: "He [Christ] says: This is my body. This word changes the offering"; cf. Hom. ii, in II Tim., i), quite plainly refer Consecration to Christ's words. It should be noted that these Fathers were concerned to defend the Real Presence, not to explain the moment at which it began, that they always thought of the whole Eucharistic prayer as one form, containing both Christ's words and the Invocation (Epiklesis).
Again, from the Catholic site NewAdvent.org
If your children ever want to get multiple furbies so they can "talk" to each other, don't do it. You'll regret it forever.
Such a kind assertion.
Tertullian was a heretic,
Only at the end of his life.
but some of his writings were quite profound. Augustine certainly had his problems as well...
The Second Council of Constantinople didn't seem to think so. Can you name some Eastern Fathers who caluminated St. Augustine of Hippo as you do?
But I gave you PROOF that Gregory the Great did NOT subscribe to the filioque.
No you didn't. You have an active imagination about what you have proven. You make wild assertions, but offer no proof. Try reading the Fathers and Councils instead of Orthodox polemics.
Pope St. Gregory the Great PREACHED the filioque in his works, so it would be VERY DIFFICULT for you, Tex, to PROOVE that he did not to subscribe to that which he was forcefully preaching.
"The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son ... the Redeemer imparted to the hearts of His disciples the Spirit who proceeds from Himself." -Pope Gregory the Great (the Theologian), Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 1,22, 2,92 (AD 595)"Our Lord ... shews how the Spirit of Both so proceeds as to be coeternal with Both ... He who is produced by procession is not posterior in time to those by whom He is put forth."
-Pope Gregory the Great (the Theologian), Moral Teachings drawn from Job, 25,4 (AD 595)
The fact is, until the western Church tried to convert Spain, it was never used in the west.
Nope. I gave you a whole list of Westerners and Easterners with their writings who used the very phrase long before the Councils of Toledo that inserted it into the Constantinopolitan Creed. You have yet to even attempt to make a response to that. Long before the conversion of Arian Spain in AD 589, we read the Spanish saying:
"The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father and the Son, but proceeding from from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten, but proceeding from the Father and the Son."
-Second Council of Toledo, (AD 447)
And in the first Western Theological Manual:
We believe that there is One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Father, in that He has a Son; Son, in that He has a Father; Holy Spirit, in that He proceeds from the Father and the Son."
-Gennadius of Marseilles, De eccl. dogm., PL 58,980(ante A.D. 495)
The bottom line is this. The Councils pronounced ANETHEMAS on ANYONE who added or took away from the creed.
No they didn't. Provide the quote. I showed you what the Council of Ephesus said, and it does not say what you claim. You haven't responded. And then there is this:
"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son" (Profession of Faith, AD 787).
Are you anathematizing the Holy Fathers gathered at the Second Council of Nicea for making the addition in bold above? You soar to the heights of hubris.
The West agreed to this, but the later Popes chose to make an issue of this as a reason to assert their pretended primacy. Hermann, you are wasting your breath trying to convince me.
I have more knowledge and sources on these subjects,
If you do, you sure aren't demonstrating it here. You refuse to provide any back-up to your claims.
and You still haven't answered my questions regarding YOUR OWN POPE, Gregory the Great.
Yes I did. I answered both as to his claims to the Primacy, and above, I give you his teaching on the Filioque from Moralia in Job.
You cannot ignore what he said and did, and furthermore, YOU KNOW IT!
I don't have to ingore it. He supports my position. He supports the filioque, and he most certainly claims a Primacy over Constantinople and the whole world.
"For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful."
-Pope St. Gregory the Great, Book 9, Epistle 12
You are over your head on this, so admit it, and bow out gracefully.
Mmmm, hmmm. Oh, all right! I give up! I can't win an argument with someone who refuses to even prove his point!
You have the right to your own beliefs, but don't think you are going to convert the Orthodox....
I certainly won't convince anyone who cannot bring themselves to even provide evidence for their own faith. MarMema, that comment is not drected to you. You are a worthy debater of the truth of the Lord.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
You have given diddly-squat. You cannot produce the most basic evidence for anything you assert. You go from one wild claim to the next, expecting us to believe the claim itself is a proof.
My soul is not in peril from following the Fathers of the Church.
I'm going to keep on bugging you, because someone has to keep you honest.
You would do well to read the actual Acts of the Council, rather than distorted summaries of them made by Orthodox polemicists.
The Acts of the Council of Ephesus are perfectly clear on this point. Read on from definition of the faith at Nicaea made in the 6th Session of the Council of Ephesus, 22 July 431:
The synod of Nicaea produced this creed:We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down, and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.
It seems fitting that all should assent to this holy creed. It is pious and sufficiently helpful for the whole world. But since some pretend to confess and accept it, while at the same time distorting the force of its expressions to their own opinion and so evading the truth, being sons of error and children of destruction, it has proved necessary to add testimonies from the holy and orthodox fathers that can fill out the meaning they have given to the words and their courage in proclaiming it. All those who have a clear and blameless faith will understand, interpret and proclaim it in this way.
When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.
No Westerner has "composed or brought forth" a new creed. And we certainly didn't change the Nicene Creed with the Filioque. It was added to the Constantinopolitan Creed, which was a Baptismal Creed in use prior to that Council. The Council of Ephesus very clearly refers to the Nicene Creed, so even if you interpretation were right, which I do not accept, the West has never violated it.
Your dishonesty knows no limits.
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.