Max says Orthodox church is" the original Universal Church", Prove It.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Max wrote:

"Actually, the Orthodox Church could be more strongly argued to be the Original Universal Church and that the Roman Church and all her "daughters[rephrased by editor]" that follow after her left the Universal communion around 1054. "

Rod's questions:

1. Why is the Orthodox Church more "Original"?

2. How has the Roman Church "left" the "Universal communion"?

3. How can you prove that the Roman Church is the "harlot", as depicted in Scriptures?

4. What is your view and understanding of the Catholic Church today in the 21th Century?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004

Answers

Response to Max Orthodox church is" the original Universal Church", Prove it

Let's see your cards, Max.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox church is" the original Universal Church", Prove It.

1. Why is the Orthodox Church more "Original"?

Because it remained faithful to the Universal councils. Rome did not. Rome did not remain faithful to the Universal councils, therefore it can't consider itself a part of the Universal Church.

2. How has the Roman Church "left" the "Universal communion"?

One of the biggest unlawful things Rome did as it left the Universal Communion was adding to the Universal Creed without a Universal council. This was against canon law.

The Universal Creed was defined by a Universal Council, but redefined by Rome when it felt it had power to change the Universal Creed without consulting the Eastern Churches.

3. How can you prove that the Roman Church is the "harlot", as depicted in Scriptures?

I said "some people believe this" - I have not totally come to this conclusion myself, but you should consider the possiblity, though.

A whore is one who is unfaithful. The whore of Revelation is an unfaithful organization. Unfaithful to whom? Christ. This is the reasoning used to say Rome is the mother of harlots, the whore of Babylon.

This is how one can say that Rome is the MOTHER and the children churches who submit to her and followed her out of faithfulness to the Universal Church are the HARLOTS spoken of in Revelation.

4. What is your view and understanding of the Catholic Church today in the 21th Century?

I'm of the opinion that Rome will continue to bring about the conditions and platform for the Anti-Christ. The Pope bowed to and kissed the Koran. Come on! Wake up.

The Koran totally and without reservation denies that Jesus is the Christ. Would you kiss that book? Would you follow a man who kisses that book?

It's not hard to see the unfaithfulness. That's just one example.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

"children churches who submit to her and followed her out of faithfulness to the Universal Church"

out of faithfulness = away from faithfulness

oops. didn't use the right English words there. ;)

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

Max,

This is how one can say that Rome is the MOTHER and the children churches who submit to her and followed her out of faithfulness to the Universal Church are the HARLOTS spoken of in Revelation.

How do the churches that broke away from the Catholic Church yet are not part of the Orthodox Church fit in with this idea?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

Andy's question before mine, of course:

Max. Are you in communion with the "Orthodox Church" and in complaince with the Universal Council through your faith system or church?

And:

Is the Catholic Church the only "harlot" who denies "orthodoxy"?

(I think my question is slightly reworded, but similar to Andy's question above.)

I once asked Elpidio to provide me with information dealing with a particular "orthodox" church.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.



Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church" Prove It.

Andy, in regards to that question, I heard this theory (I never verified it):

When the protestant groups were breaking away and forming their own denominations, the Catholic Church issued an appeal of sorts of something to the degree of, "What you are doing is sinful and against the Church, however, those who have not forsaken the mother's baptism (being the trinity formula) will be allowed to return into the Church etc. etc.."

That is a rough paraphrase. Anyway, the theory continues that when the trinity formula was instituted, the church had now become a harlot, a compromised church, and so every church that followed this baptism became the "daughter's."

How does the Orthodox Church baptize? If they use the trinity formula also, then this theory would be incorrect (assuming that the Orthodox Church is more original than the Roman Catholic Church).

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

Thanks for the info Luke.

Max, do the Orthodox Churches use the Trinitarian formula for baptism?

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

I think the Eastern Orthodox Churches do use the Trinitarian formula for baptism. Here is an excerpt from a Greek Orthodox church site on the Sacramental Life:

...the candidate is baptized by the officiating bishop or priest with three immersions and emersions using the liturgical formula "the servant of God (name) is baptized in the name of the Father. Amen. And the Son. Amen. And the Holy Spirit. Amen." The three fold immersion becomes the adequate sign of pariticipation in Christ's three day burial and resurrection.

The source is the Sacramental Life of the Orthodox Church. Look under Baptism. The site is associated with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Please correct me if I got it wrong or the source is incorrect.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

>How do the churches that broke away from the Catholic Church yet are not part of the Orthodox Church fit in with this idea? <

It could be argued that they are just as schismatic as Rome.

>Max. Are you in communion with the "Orthodox Church" and in complaince with the Universal Council through your faith system or church?<

Why do you ask? Thanks.

>Is the Catholic Church the only "harlot" who denies "orthodoxy"?<

In Revelation, there is a religious organization referred to as the "Whore" who is the "Mother of Harlots."

Protestant churches did not directly leave the Universal Church. They were never in communion with the ancient Universal Church, so it's hard to say they "turned unfaithful" since they were were never faithful to begin with. Rome and the churches subject to her were, however, at one time faithful to the Universal Church, but later became unfaithful.

>How does the Orthodox Church baptize? If they use the trinity formula also, then this theory would be incorrect (assuming that the Orthodox Church is more original than the Roman Catholic Church).<

The Orthodox Church baptizes disciples into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the command given by (in the Name of) the Lord Jesus Christ.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church"The original Church", Prove It.

Max. Are you in communion with the "Orthodox Church" and in complaince with the Universal Council through your faith system or church?

Max: "Why do you ask? Thanks."

The reason I ask this question is because some people will accuse the Catholic Church to be in error or to be a false church. Therefore, it would seem that the accusers, who reject the Catholic Church, must be in the know or in the correct "church". So, which is the correct church, if not the Catholic Church or any other faith system out there?

Are you, Max, in the true church(?), if so, please give me a name.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.



Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church"The original Church", Prove It.

Is your faith system in compliance with the "Universal Council"?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

>The reason I ask this question is because some people will accuse the Catholic Church to be in error or to be a false church. Therefore, it would seem that the accusers, who reject the Catholic Church, must be in the know or in the correct "church".<

The points I've made remain whether I am an Orthodox Christian now or whether I'm about to become one or just left Orthodoxy.

Whatever my personal case, you need to respond to the strong points I've made. They will not disappear.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church", Prove It.

Then, here is an open question for any non-Catholics in this part of cyber-space.

Who is in compliance with the Universal Council--the Orthodoxy?

Max. Your reply to me surprises. I sense that refusal to give a name implies what I have always feared. There isn't a perfect system because all men are fallible. Therefore, we submit to what we believe to be the truth. In my case, it is the Catholic Church.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The Original Church", Prove It.

Max

I have re-read your answers. It is becoming apparent that because you do not give a specific name I must assume that any faith system that accepts and practices a given set of Christian tenets must be in compliance with "orthodoxy". Is that what your no answer is suppose to indicate? So, then, there is a set of truths and doctrines that can be found in an earthly "church". Have you found it?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The Original Church", Prove It.

I answered your 4 questions. Isn't that good enough?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 22, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The Original Church", Prove It.

Hi treasure

Have you looked at the post where Max equates the Catholic Church with a harlot? You didn't seem to be bother about God's Church being called a harlot? Does that sit well with you? Did God provide His children with a harlot of a church? Why didn't you question Max about presenting such an offensive idea? He says that he isn't quite convinced and that some people do believe it. You then continues with his "harlot" implications.

If you are gonna be fair, don't throw me into the fires without the other half of the fodder, treasure.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The original Church ", Prove It.

Should I stoop to the level of presenting all non-Catholic churchs as harlots? What would the reaction be from people? Well, I don't believe that the other churchs are halots. But, people who believe the Catholic Church to be evil are eveidently free from criticism or correction. When a Catholic speaks out in defense of their Church, suddenly, we don't belong in this forum.

Moderator

Would you consider deleting Treasure's post? I will also like to retitle this thread to something less offensive. I should have proofread my thoughts before titling this thread. I'm absolutely sure that Max has nothing to do with harlots. He may view the Catholic Church as being in error, but there isn't a need to call Her a "harlot" either.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "The Original Church", Prove It.

Max

Should I start another thread for you to answer my 5th question or should I not ask anymore of you?

Oops! never mind. That would make it 6 questions instead of the original 4. That's ok. You are free to go.

...........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox Church "the original Church", Prove It.

>Max calls for Harlots<

Just to set the record straight, I don't call for harlots. :) ha!

Well, maybe I do call for harlots to return and be faithful to their first husband.

>Should I stoop to the level of presenting all non-Catholic churchs as harlots?<

I think the problem here is the very word "harlot" is offensive, but the Bible uses it, so we have to accept it and apply it wherever it may perhaps fit according to its definition. It's not meant to offend for the sake of offending, like insulting a person just for the fun of it. I'm not that sort of person.

>people who believe the Catholic Church to be evil are eveidently free from criticism or correction<

Not necessarily. A person can reasonably believe the Roman Church has lost its way and leads other churches astray. It's not an unreasonable position in light of the facts. It'd be unreasonable if a person held the position just for no reason at all. Those type of people exist, so I agree with you to a point.

>He may view the Catholic Church as being in error, but there isn't a need to call Her a "harlot" either.<

Rod, if a person can look at the Book of Revelation, see that there is a "Whore" mentioned there, and then reasonably identify the RC church as that mother whore and her following churches as "harlots" - it's not an insult created in my own mind in order to offend for the sake of offending. It's simply an identification of a current large unfaithful organization with an unfaithful organization found in the Bible. The terms "whore" and "harlot" are somewhat offensive terms, but the Apostle applied them to the organization he saw in his vision. I didn't just "steal it from the streets" and arbitrarily apply it to whatever I wanted in order to offend people.

I hope you get my point. It may be offensive, but please be more reasonable and look beyond the offensiveness of the terms and consider if they apply or not. If you think they don't, offer a defense or just dismiss it. That's all. Peace.

>Should I start another thread for you to answer my 5th question or should I not ask anymore of you?<

Do what you want. You ought to deal with this thread first. But, that's just my opinion. I know you're just joking, but seriously... you asked some questions. Were my answers sufficient or not?

All I can do is assume my answers were sufficient since you are not talking about those issues anymore.

>And I dont think anyone should label churches as Harlots<

Like I said, I didn't just pull the label off the street and apply it to an organization because it was a fun thing to do. Honestly, I'd hoped people were a little more scholarly here and not so reactionary.

Here's an analogy that seems to fit the Roman Church:

Imagine a soccer team and its captain.

Now, all the players are equal, but the captain speaks for the team to the referee (government) and sometimes is the main encouraging person on the team and the one who keeps people focused on the strategy.

Now, if the captain of the team (Pope) starts feeling a little self- important, begins changing the strategy (Creed) that was agreed upon at half-time (Universal Council) then isn't it proper that the team agree upon another captain for the team? Wouldn't the coach (Jesus) tell the players (churches) to ignore the first captain (Pope) who is assuming more authority than he was given? The players ought to stick to the original strategy (Creed) and ignore the captian's innovations.

Not a perfect analogy, of course. But, it illustrates that the Pope of Rome was indeed the captain of the team (Universal Church) at one point and the whole church recognized that fact for many years. However, the Pope of Rome began assuming too much power over the churches - even to the point where he arrogantly tries to change the Council's Creed unilaterally.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


Response to Max Calls Orthodox church is" the original Universal Church", Prove It.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

Many of us become uncomfortable to speak and/or to hear the words "virgin" and "whore." We know what they mean when it comes to individuals, but the Bible also uses these terms to refer to faithful and unfaithful nations (OT: Israel).

Everyone seems to know that the harlot of Revelation is referring to Rome, even the Catholic Church knows this. But I see very clear passages indicating that it isn't just the city of Rome, nor the Roman government, but the religious body, the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

I know Catholics will take offense at this, though Scriptures do not label all Catholics as prostitutes or harlots.

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say:    "Come out of her, my people,        so that you will not share in her sins,        so that you will not receive any of her plagues; "

I don't mean to bash Catholics, i just see the harlot to be the religion thereof.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


Response to Max Calls For "Harlots", Prove It.

I know Catholics will take offense at this, though Scriptures do not label all Catholics as prostitutes or harlots.

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins,so that you will not receive any of her plagues; "

Those same words could be directed to Christians in pagan Rome, not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church.

I can see yours and Max's points, but I disagree because pagan Rome easily fits the "whore of Babylon."

There is something else to consider if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a "harlot/whore" due to unfaithfulness to Christ. As Max already pointed out, that means that she was at some point faithful to Christ. Even when Israel was unfaithful, she was still His chosen people. He chastised Israel and brought the people back. He never chose another people though. Christ is always faithful and doesn't divorce His Bride.

How then can the Catholic Church be unfaithful to Christ of it isn't Christ's Church? If you want to use the analogy that the Catholic Church is the harlot, then to be consistent, wouldn't you have to conclude that she is also Christ's church? An unfaithful wife is still a wife. Then wouldn't Revelation show the Catholic Church being cleansed and purified?

I believe the term "harlot" symbolizes sexual immorality and poltical alliances driven by greed. Therefore, I think that the "whore" is pagan Rome for two reasons:

1. It was full of sexual immorality.

2. It made alliances with many nations who were driven by greed to partake in pagan Rome's materialism and trade.

It just seems to me that if you want the Catholic Church to be the "whore" in the model of Israel as a "whore" in the prophetic books that you must admit that the Catholic Church contains the chosen people of God's new covenant.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 23, 2004.


The term is "Whore of Babylon". "Babylon" is known to be a biblical code word for the pagan Roman Empire, which persecuted the Holy Catholic Church in its earliest days, and was responsible for the execution of the Apostles and thousands of other early Catholics. It is absurd to suggest that St. John, one of those same Apostles, described his own Church, and not its persecutors, as the "whore of Babylon", and encouraged people to separate themselves from her. Especially considering, as Fundamentalists are quick to point out, that the Catholic Church in those days was not specifically coonnected with the city of Rome.

The fact that you think you "see very clear passages" which, when interpreted by yourself, appear to support your point of view is meaningless. Anything can be supported by self-interpretation of Scripture; which is why Protestantism continues to self-destruct; and which is precisely why any such self-interpretation is invalid on the face of it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 23, 2004.


Those same words could be directed to Christians in pagan Rome, not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church. -Andy

I'm missing your meaning. Are you suggesting that there were Christians in Rome that were not apart of the Catholic Church?? Christians are the church, and Christians in Rome would be the church at Rome.

Is the harlot church still Christ's church? Yes, if a harlot Christian is still a Christian. Will the Catholic Church be purified? Only those in the church who have remained faithful to Christ.

The only part of Revelation written towards wishy-washy churchs/christians, unfaithful brides, would be the first 3 chapters. The rest of Revelation has only 2 sides, Christain and evil. It doesn't matter where the Catholic organization is during those times, because salvation depends on the individual placing faith in Christ. Any Christian can become a harlot.

It just seems to me that if you want the Catholic Church to be the "whore" in the model of Israel as a "whore" in the prophetic books that you must admit that the Catholic Church contains the chosen people of God's new covenant. - Andy

If you mean that I have to admit there are Christians in the Catholic Church, I would. I do not suscibe to the condemning of Catholics as others do. I know what it means to be saved, and I know what that Catholic Church teaches. I have no doubt there are covenant Christians that are Catholic.

On the other hand, if you are saying that there are no Christians outside of the Roman organization, then i'm not with you there.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


It is absurd to suggest that St. John, one of those same Apostles, described his own Church, and not its persecutors, as the "whore of Babylon", and encouraged people to separate themselves from her. Especially considering, as Fundamentalists are quick to point out, that the Catholic Church in those days was not specifically coonnected with the city of Rome. - Paul

You are mistaken Paul. The "whore of Babylon" is a future event. John was not writing of present circumstances except at the very beginning of the book. So even if John identified himself as part of the Roman organization, he still would not have been writing about the church as it was around 95AD. And yes, during this perioud, pagan Rome and the church at Rome were still seperated.

Also, this books isn't the revelation of St. John, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Doesn't matter what you think John would say, he wrote exactly what he saw and what he heard without inserting his own opinions.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


Personally, I haven't totally concluded that the Roman Church is the "Whore" now and that the churches born of her are the "harlots" of Revelation. However, I do see indications that this could become true.

If Rome is the "whore" in Revelation, I think she'll continue to slide from where she is. She'll get worse and make religious alliances with non-Christian religions - finally persecuting all those who don't join the Official World Religion under the False Christ. This will usher in the Apostasy.

2Th 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come the apostasy first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition"

If there's a general apostasy (Christianity falling away) before the False Christ is revealed, one could reasonably call the religious organizations that convert to the Flse Christ as whores and harlots after they leave Jesus Christ.

If the Roman Pope can kiss the Koran and this is truly acceptable to his followers, one must truly and courageously question the ultimate fate of the religious organization he leads.

Perhaps that's why the scripture says, "Come out of her my people."

God's people (believers in Jesus Christ) exist in the "whore" organization according to Revelation, but they will suffer and become disconeected "orphans" when their organization accepts the False Christ.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 23, 2004.


Luke,

I'm missing your meaning. Are you suggesting that there were Christians in Rome that were not apart of the Catholic Church?? Christians are the church, and Christians in Rome would be the church at Rome.

I'm saying that the "whore" could be pagan Rome and that the verse is telling the Christians (Catholics in my view) in pagan Rome to leave it. This is based on the assumption that the whore is pagan Rome and that harlotry refers to sexual immorality and greed rather than unfaithfulness of God's people.

In order to understand Revelation, many Christians apply two basic assumptions:

1. Harlotry refers to unfaithfullness to God.

2. The events in Revelation all occur in our future.

However, there are other schools of thought that have merit.

- Many of the events happened in the past and were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD making Old Jerusalem the "whore" (Preterism).

- The events described are spiritual rather than physical events.

- The events described are happening now. Witness the persecution of Christians around the globe today.

- The futurist interpretation that all the events in Revelation a will come to pass right before the Final Judgment. This is the one I've seen used in this forum a lot.

- Various combinations of any of these.

Who's to say which interpretation is the correct one? Each has their objective merits and can be supported by Scripture as well as historical events. What I'm trying to say is that equating the Roman Catholic Church with the whore of Babylon is pure conjecture and cannot really be proven. What makes it more believable than other interpretations is our personal prejudices.

Here's an intersting article from the Preterist web site on Old Jerusalem as the "whore of Babylon" by James Stuart Russell.

And another interesting article by Reformed writer David Curtis.

If we're going to try to interpret something as symbolic as Revelation, we might as well consider all the available schools of thought for studying it.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 23, 2004.


Alright Andy, I can see your points. My interpretation of Revelation obviously is going to influence my interpretation of historic and future events, and it being different from yours (I reject preterism), we'll have to settle at being at odds on this.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), October 25, 2004.

Hi Luke,

You said,

Alright Andy, I can see your points. My interpretation of Revelation obviously is going to influence my interpretation of historic and future events, and it being different from yours (I reject preterism), we'll have to settle at being at odds on this.

OK, Luke. Although I'm not really a preterist yet and can't say that preterism has all the answers. I'm trying to keep an open mind, even though I'm becoming convinced the "whore" is pagan Rome, the more I look into it. Good discussion by the way.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 25, 2004.


Max

you need to buy a history book, friend.

the Schism was that - a Schism. it was a rebellion by Eastern bishops who had always recognised Rome, dressed as it was in the blood of Ss Peter and Paul, as the "special See" [to use my shorthand].

countless "heresies" had arisen in the East and been resolved by Rome.

human pride created the "Great Schism". and there had been plenty of others before that. indeed some of the earlier Schismatics have since been reconciled with Holy Mother Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 26, 2004.


>you need to buy a history book, friend.<

A Roman Catholic one?

>the Schism was that - a Schism. it was a rebellion by Eastern bishops who had always recognised Rome, dressed as it was in the blood of Ss Peter and Paul, as the "special See" [to use my shorthand].<

The Eastern Bishops recognized and respected Rome's position of primary honor among the equal churches, but not as infallible. When Rome changed the Universal Creed without consulting with the other Patriarchates, that was the biggest offense that showed Rome was totally out of control.

>countless "heresies" had arisen in the East and been resolved by Rome.<

Rome definitely had a prime leadership position amongst the churches, mainly because of being at the center of the known world, the center of the Roman Empire. The reason Constantinople was considered second after Rome was because it was the new Rome, not because of some unwritten Apostolic superiority rule.

>human pride created the "Great Schism".<

Yes, the Church at Rome slowly decided she was more than she was.

>indeed some of the earlier Schismatics have since been reconciled with Holy Mother Church.<

The fact that some so early on rejected the superiority of the Church at Rome is an evidence that such a belief was not truly Universal. Surely all churches would have known the rule to follow Rome no matter what... ESPECIALLY 4 of the original Patriarchates. But, such a rule did not exist. Rome was respected highly, but was not considered infallible. She was considered an equal.

There's still no excuse for Rome to have unilaterally changed the Creed... not just a minor part of the Creed, the part about the Holy Trinity.

It was not pride for the Eastern Churches to side with an ancient Ecumenical Council concerning the Holy Trinity over the decision of Rome. As you know, Bishops of Rome can been wrong. Think Indulgences...

If the Bishop of Rome can be wrong, then it's right (not proud) to side with an Ecumencial Council over the decision of Rome about something so important as the Holy Trinity.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


BTW, if Rome always had the absolute say and had the right to define Christian belief and practice from the start, then what was the purpose of ever calling an Ecumenical Council to determine and work out issues?

Why didn't the churches simply ask Rome what it held and then just adopt that Universally instead of calling a Universal Council in order to define the Creed?

Or, were Ecumenical Councils simply a formality where the church gathered from all over the world to hear Rome's decree?

-- Max Darity (arrowotuch@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


Ecumenical Councils were and still are official assemblies convened under the authority and direction of "Rome", of the bishops who derive their authority from "Rome", and who are subject to the authority of "Rome", in order to discuss and discern specific matters of the faith assigned by "Rome", who report their findings directly to "Rome", and whose findings do not become effective until officially approved by "Rome".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 28, 2004.

Max

the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople because that latter, in a fit of pique, closed down all the Latin rite Churches in his area.

the foloique was a matter of faith - and it was long accepted in the West that it was ably supported by Scripture. recap, the West were far better theologians that the East. the East have barely heard of St Sugustine.

the West, however, played down the significance of the filioque to secure Unity as Our Lord commanded.

the filioque was but one oustanding point. unleavened bread. celibacy. liturgy.

it all came to a head when the Normans recovered an island somewhere (don't remember) from the Moslems and wanted it to be Latin rite as they were, even though it was in the Patriarch's region. that's why he had his fit. the Pope went in and made it Latin Rite.

this thing developed over centuries. Rome had always been pretty patient with the East.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 28, 2004.


also the East did accept the filioque some years later in a deal they were putting together. around the time of the Conciliarists. deal fell through. not because of filioque though.

say's it all to me.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 28, 2004.


>Ecumenical Councils were and still are official assemblies convened under the authority and direction of "Rome",<

Cite your evidence for Councils up to the 7th EC.

>of the bishops who derive their authority from "Rome",<

St. Paul did not derive his authority from Rome, neither did the Bishops which he appointed derive their authority from Rome.

>whose findings do not become effective until officially approved by "Rome".<

The "findings" become effective when the Ecumenical Council comes to a conclusion, not when Rome decides whether to pass or veto the findings.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


>the foloique was a matter of faith - and it was long accepted in the West that it was ably supported by Scripture.<

Whether it was supported by scripture or not (it's not) the Roman Church took one of the most important Symbols of Faith established at a Universal Council long before that time and added something that redefined the understanding of the Trinity... the most important doctrine in Christianity. Not acceptable.

>recap, the West were far better theologians that the East.<

Huh? "far better theologians"? What does that mean?

>the East have barely heard of St Sugustine.<

St. Augustine was not without error.

>the West, however, played down the significance of the filioque to secure Unity as Our Lord commanded.<

One cannot simply mess around with the words of the Creed (the Creed even St. Augustine confessed) and then seek unity as if the words of the Creed are not vital to unity. One cannot unilaterally change the Symbol of Unity.

>the filioque was but one oustanding point. unleavened bread. celibacy. liturgy.<

Messing with the doctrine of the Trinity is a small thing?

>it all came to a head when the Normans recovered an island somewhere (don't remember) from the Moslems and wanted it to be Latin rite as they were, even though it was in the Patriarch's region. that's why he had his fit. the Pope went in and made it Latin Rite.<

Obviously, Rome was not seeking unity and peace with the rest of the churches, but was adopting "progressive" views. There are all sorts of "progressive" Catholics today, but it's all OK as long as you accept Roman Authority, even if your doctrine differs from Rome.

>this thing developed over centuries. Rome had always been pretty patient with the East.<

The West was "patient" with those Christians who opted for the more ancient traditions and Original Creeds. I see.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


>also the East did accept the filioque some years later in a deal they were putting together. around the time of the Conciliarists. deal fell through. not because of filioque though. say's it all to me.<

Two centuries of papal resistance to the "filioque addition" also says a lot.

Some Eastern bishops were seeking political protection at the expense of the Creed. Not good. The majority of clergy and laity rejected this first attempt and preferred to be overcome by Muslims than allow the purity of the faith to be compromised.

>deal fell through. not because of filioque though.<

The second attempt failed too. The talks failed partly (thankfully) because of bad feelings over the raping and pillaging by Roman Catholic Crusaders of Constantinople centuries earlier. Only a fraction of the Eastern Churches accepted the ambiguous "deal" with Rome and preferred to see Muslim turbins in their lands than Latin Bishop hats in their churches along with an impure Creed. God preserved the Creed.

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), October 28, 2004.


nice talking to you Max. i will try to get back this weekend but might not make it until early next week.

out of interest, are you in the Orthodox Church, or am i talking to a protestant educated in the Early Church history?

you don't have to answer but i am curious (and i will tell you why i am curious if you answer).

a bientot.

PS i trust that you accept that i am not relying upon "Catholic history books"? in truth, i am not.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 29, 2004.


note to self.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 04, 2004.

just to make sure that this thread stays alive.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 04, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ