You think that private confession and assigned penance is a stronger dividing line than the correct way to describe the Holy Ghost?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

You think that private confession and assigned penance is a stronger dividing line than the correct way to describe the Holy Ghost?

---

I think it is a much clearer dividing line. Easy to distinguish and see the consequences.

K2,

1) Regarding God- Mystery of the Trinity- I can easily identify what Augustine dreamed/ vision- of the little boy trying to drain the ocean into the hole (hopeless task). And God's message to St. Augustine - was don't even try to understand the Trinity- Me. I (Booboo) still cannot grasp how God can always exist, that God does not have a beginning and end. So I don't invest a lot of time in trying to fully understand God. I know I won't

2) Regarding the Filioque- I still don't see the issue. We see in scripture. Father sends the Spirit over and over- Genesis 1 (there is no disagreement with the role of the father). Jesus gets his authority through the Father.

We also see in Gospel of John: the authority of Jesus and Jesus always existing from the beginning. We also see
John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Matt 28 18-19 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Go, therefore,and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

3) Trying to understand God. I really focus on God being Love. Can't love if there is just one person. Thus the Trinity makes sense- there are 3. It has been said the Father looks and loves the son, the son looks at the father. And the love (breath, gasp) between them is the Spirit. So the Spirit is sent by the father and the son.

AgLiving06 said:

---

yes, but those are only small differences and not necessary for salvation in the first place...So no big deal for a Protestant. So they wouldn't understand why you even bother to be concerned with something that's been that way for 500 years.

So all non-issues.

---

Unlike Protestants we agree on so much. Per our discussion, you only really have one issue. That is the authority of the pope (you see Filioque as minor).

We agree on the authority of Bishops (this huge stumbling block on authority for Protestants and apostolic succession is removed). You see no benefit in having a leader of the bishops. We do.

K2, I respond to the posts in reverse order. Also from easiest to most difficult- time consuming.

Quote:

---

The filioque destroys the Trinity in equality because the Father and Son share the property of causation of the Spirit, but the Spirit shares no property in Causation. This not only subordinates the Spirit to somehow below the Father and Son, but also means the Son is both generation and causation which subordinates the Father.

---

Very important so I will state it again. The Mystery of the Holy Trinity- we don't fully understand God. I always found it odd. That Jesus had to first leave and then the spirit could be sent by the father on the son's behalf. Why did Jesus had to leave? I like my previous love example. Speculation: Jesus and God are together once Jesus ascends to Heaven (that is why they had to wait for Jesus to leave). They Love and their outpouring of their love is the Spirit. thus the Spirit is sent by father and son. Or Father through son. Everyone knows God is the father. That everyone comes from the father.


Previous Question I asked that was unanswered- How does the Orthodox church determine doctrine and other decisions by the bishops? Is it 100 % agreement is it 51%, simple majority? Specifically How do you guys resolve disputes between Bishops? They both carry the same authority.

Quote:

---

The unilateral change to the symbol of faith - something that was used to identify Christians as members of a common faith with a common belief going back to Apostolic times (early creeds from the 100s are numerous) by one person's authority (Leo IX) represents a fundamental change in church structure. This shows that he, and other popes, believe that the authority of the bishop of Rome could overrule an Ecumenical council of the whole Church. This puts the Pope as universal leader of the Church. The Fathers write of the visible unity of the Church being found in the unity of the episcopate (the college of all Bishops), NOT in one man or leader. We have a leader -- Christ is the sole head of the Church. The invisible unity of the Church was represented by a common faith, common praxis, and most importantly common communion. The filioque fractured both of these: the visible unity no longer was by the unity of the entire episcopate, and the invisible unity was denied by changing the symbol of faith - literally the confession of a common faith

---

I am certain I do not know all the details, like you do. Leo IX did not act alone, many bishops agreed with him. Maybe the majority of Bishops agreed with Leo? He did not act alone and not everyone agreed (which is the case with every dispute- not everyone agrees). Especially as the church grows in size and spreads out across the globe. Note: I find it interesting how Paul had his squabbles with others, doesn't make him a bad guy. Just that we are human and we squabble.

Quote:

---

The entire Church is present at each Eucharist, so this change to the ecclesiology of the church now denies that bishops in and of themselves have authority to act in the place and as a type of Christ. Perhaps the popes think St Ignatius should have written pope instead of bishop when he wrote "do nothing apart from the bishop" and when he said "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

---

Agree with comments. As you know the Pope is a Bishop. He is supposed to be servant leader of Bishops, Like Peter was leader.

Quote:

---

The filioque represents a rift in the very fundamental philosophy of knowledge between East and West. As I've written, the knowledge of the Divine is revealed by God alone. He is transcendent so He can't be reached by logic or philosophical speculation, no matter how pious the man or the purpose (St Augustine and his attempt to defend the Spirit, for example). The truth of the Trinity is the product of Theology, knowledge of God given by God from within God, within the Church. We are initiated into this knowledge by baptism and it grows with our perfection by the Spirit. Outside of the Church there is no true Theology. We do not reach up to God, He reaches down to us.

---

As I see it again- rift is making mountain out of mole hill. Other points agree with on church and God.

Why don't you quote the relevant passage of Scripture? John 15:26 - "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"

booboo91 said:

---

K2, I respond to the posts in reverse order. Also from easiest to most difficult- time consuming.

Quote:

---

The filioque destroys the Trinity in equality because the Father and Son share the property of causation of the Spirit, but the Spirit shares no property in Causation. This not only subordinates the Spirit to somehow below the Father and Son, but also means the Son is both generation and causation which subordinates the Father.

---

Very important so I will state it again. The Mystery of the Holy Trinity- we don't fully understand God. I always found it odd. That Jesus had to first leave and then the spirit could be sent by the father on the son's behalf. Why did Jesus had to leave? I like my previous love example. Speculation: Jesus and God are together once Jesus ascends to Heaven (that is why they had to wait for Jesus to leave). They Love and their outpouring of their love is the Spirit. thus the Spirit is sent by father and son. Or Father through son. Everyone knows God is the father. That everyone comes from the father.


Previous Question I asked that was unanswered- How does the Orthodox church determine doctrine and other decisions by the bishops? Is it 100 % agreement is it 51%, simple majority? Specifically How do you guys resolve disputes between Bishops? They both carry the same authority.

---

I think it its pious to refrain from speculation about the Trinity and let those who the Church has approved speak on our behalf. I have no knowledge of the Trinity, only what I've been taught.

There are some problems with your speculation. Jesus did not stop being the Logos when He was incarnate. St Athanasius teaches us in On the Incarnation:

Quote:

---

Invisible and imperceptible as in Himself He is, He became visible through His works and revealed Himself as the Word of the Father, the Ruler and King of the whole creation.
There is a paradox in this last statement which we must now examine. The Word was not hedged in by His body, nor did His presence in the body prevent His being present elsewhere as well. When He moved His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and might. No. The marvelous truth is, that being the Word, so far from being Himself contained by anything, He actually contained all things Himself. In creation He is present everywhere, yet is distinct in being from it; ordering, directing, giving life to all, containing all, yet is He Himself the Uncontained, existing solely in His Father. As with the whole, so also is it with the part. Existing in a human body, to which He Himself gives life, He is still Source of life to all the universe, present in every part of it, yet outside the whole; and He is revealed both through the works of His body and through His activity in the world.

---

The Spirit did not "leave" the Trinity to come to us, and Christ did not "leave" the Father to become incarnate for us. This is part of the problem of the filioque -- you wanted a direct and material problem? You have given it. It confuses description of the temporal mission of God in the world with the eternal inner life of the Trinity. One is manifest to us, witnessed by men, people saw Him -- "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life" -- this is not the same thing as knowledge of the Trinity.

The Church determines doctrine in three steps. The primary source of truth for us is Holy Tradition, which contains Holy Scripture, Praxis, etc. This is the Dogmatic Fact of the church, the mystical life within the Church, the faith passed down to all the saints which we preserve and hold fast to as St Paul charged us. Theologoumena is speculation that may or may not be from within dogmatic fact. Doctrine, teachings, are confirmation or rejection of theologoumena at councils, synods, etc. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100%, the Church is infallible, not bishops or any particular bishop. So even though most of Christendom was monophysite or monothelite, the numbers don't matter: St Maximos and others from the East and Rome from the West defended Orthodoxy. And even if the majority of Christians confess the filioque, it doesn't matter, because the majority confession is not the source of truth. Christ is the source of Truth, He is Truth itself, and Dogmatic Fact is union with Him - the Faith is to become a member of Christ. You've got it backwards, and this is because the position of papal infalliblity teaches you to do that.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Why don't you quote the relevant passage of Scripture? John 15:26 - "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"

---

They are both relevant. they are both Gospel passages.

Quote:

---

There are some problems with your speculation. Jesus did not stop being the Logos when He was incarnate. St Athanasius teaches us in On the Incarnation:

---

Agreed Jesus was fully man and God. Why do you think Jesus had to wait to send the spirit? That was speculation on my part, trying to tie it into Love.

QUESTION How does Orthodox decide doctrine and make decisions if the Bishops disagree? Is it 100% agreement required? Is it 51% a simple Majority. Please answer.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The Church determines doctrine in three steps. The primary source of truth for us is Holy Tradition, which contains Holy Scripture, Praxis, etc. This is the Dogmatic Fact of the church, the mystical life within the Church, the faith passed down to all the saints which we preserve and hold fast to as St Paul charged us. Theologoumena is speculation that may or may not be from within dogmatic fact. Doctrine, teachings, are confirmation or rejection of theologoumena at councils, synods, etc. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100%, the Church is infallible, not bishops or any particular bishop. So even though most of Christendom was monophysite or monothelite, the numbers don't matter: St Maximos and others from the East and Rome from the West defended Orthodoxy. And even if the majority of Christians confess the filioque, it doesn't matter, because the majority confession is not the source of truth. Christ is the source of Truth, He is Truth itself, and Dogmatic Fact is union with Him - the Faith is to become a member of Christ. You've got it backwards, and this is because the position of papal infalliblity teaches you to do that.

---

Spoken like a Protestant (don't worry not calling you a Protestant). That is what they say. Everyone decides- because it is me and Jesus. Thus I am correct. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Westboro, Judiaziers, are all correct. the individuals decide. I am starting my own church- the church of Booboo

You and I both know that is not entirely so. Yes Christ is the source of Truth, Yes we have a personal relationship with Jesus and Jesus and Spirit can definitely guide us. But clearly Jesus also established a church to guide us. Matt 18 17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

K2,

I smile at how you recognize the authority of Bishops, the pope is a bishop. And then get bent out of shape that the pope has no authority. when you recognize authority of bishops.

So instead of one person in charge there are 1000 (however many bishops are in Orthodox church). You come to the same issue- flawed men in charge. we clam there is one, you claim there are 1000 and protestants claim each individual is the authority.

booboo91 said:

---

Quote:

---

The unilateral change to the symbol of faith - something that was used to identify Christians as members of a common faith with a common belief going back to Apostolic times (early creeds from the 100s are numerous) by one person's authority (Leo IX) represents a fundamental change in church structure. This shows that he, and other popes, believe that the authority of the bishop of Rome could overrule an Ecumenical council of the whole Church. This puts the Pope as universal leader of the Church. The Fathers write of the visible unity of the Church being found in the unity of the episcopate (the college of all Bishops), NOT in one man or leader. We have a leader -- Christ is the sole head of the Church. The invisible unity of the Church was represented by a common faith, common praxis, and most importantly common communion. The filioque fractured both of these: the visible unity no longer was by the unity of the entire episcopate, and the invisible unity was denied by changing the symbol of faith - literally the confession of a common faith

---

I am certain I do not know all the details, like you do. Leo IX did not act alone, many bishops agreed with him. Maybe the majority of Bishops agreed with Leo? He did not act alone and not everyone agreed (which is the case with every dispute- not everyone agrees). Especially as the church grows in size and spreads out across the globe. Note: I find it interesting how Paul had his squabbles with others, doesn't make him a bad guy. Just that we are human and we squabble.

Quote:

---

The entire Church is present at each Eucharist, so this change to the ecclesiology of the church now denies that bishops in and of themselves have authority to act in the place and as a type of Christ. Perhaps the popes think St Ignatius should have written pope instead of bishop when he wrote "do nothing apart from the bishop" and when he said "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

---

Agree with comments. As you know the Pope is a Bishop. He is supposed to be servant leader of Bishops, Like Peter was leader.

Quote:

---

The filioque represents a rift in the very fundamental philosophy of knowledge between East and West. As I've written, the knowledge of the Divine is revealed by God alone. He is transcendent so He can't be reached by logic or philosophical speculation, no matter how pious the man or the purpose (St Augustine and his attempt to defend the Spirit, for example). The truth of the Trinity is the product of Theology, knowledge of God given by God from within God, within the Church. We are initiated into this knowledge by baptism and it grows with our perfection by the Spirit. Outside of the Church there is no true Theology. We do not reach up to God, He reaches down to us.

---

As I see it again- rift is making mountain out of mole hill. Other points agree with on church and God.

---

The majority of which bishops? Because it is an utter certainty that even if ALL of the bishops of Rome and the West agreed, at the time that would not have been a majority. The entire East did not, and does not, confess the filioque.

If Leo IX wanted to change the symbol of faith, he should have called a council. Change was not permitted, was banned at the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus:

Quote:

---

Canon 7:
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicaea.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

The majority of which bishops? Because it is an utter certainty that even if ALL of the bishops of Rome and the West agreed, at the time that would not have been a majority. The entire East did not, and does not, confess the filioque.

If Leo IX wanted to change the symbol of faith, he should have called a council. Change was not permitted, was banned at the Ecumenical Council at Ephesus:

---

I don't have a break down of all the Bishops at the time (and I don't care if it was 75%, 51% or 30% agreed with Pope Leo). My point was it was NOT only the pope against all the Bishops of the East and West.

As the pope today- he speaks with the other bishops. And when he makes a decision not everyone will agree.
that is human nature. Also Catholic Answers responded about Council making statements that apply to future councils. Edicts of an ecumenical council are binding on Christians, but they are not binding on another ecumenical council unless they are pronouncing a matter of faith or morals. Later ecumenical councils can revise or modify disciplinary policies of their predecessors. Since the prohibition on making a new creed was a disciplinary matter, it could be changed by later ecumenical councils. CA- Council Changes

Question- How do the Orthodox decide if Bishops do not agree? Is it 100% agreement do you need a simple majority?

You keep asking that question like it's a killer point. I told you, doctrine is set at councils - whether that's local synods or ecumenical councils determines how binding they are (whether on a local or ecumenical basis). I can find the acts of be ecumenical councils and the votes. Even Nicaea wasn't unanimous (but it was close).

k2aggie07 said:

---

You keep asking that question like it's a killer point. I told you, doctrine is set at councils - whether that's local synods or ecumenical councils determines how binding they are (whether on a local or ecumenical basis). I can find the acts of be ecumenical councils and the votes. Even Nicaea wasn't unanimous (but it was close).

---

Thank you- So it is 51% majority? As you noted it was nearly unanimous so it wasn't even close.

Maybe I am completely wrong. Looking at history. Orthodox church has had none or a few (depending on definition) of Ecumenical councils. Since the split. Nothing for 400 years Wiki Councils

Why is that? Note: just trying to understand.

I don't know what the rule is.

But why does it matter? In your church it's 1 vote and nothing else.

k2aggie07 said:

---

booboo91 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

So basically conversion, without actual submission.

How come I always see these articles from the West and not the East?

Does schism hurt the Church? Absolutely. Is unity in the name of love worth sacrificing the Truth as we know it in Orthodoxy? No.

---

K2- where Orthodox fall short in my opinion is unity. Isolated because of ethnicity and country. Catholic Church is truly universal- melting pot- reaching out. So it does makes sense Orthodox do not want to unite, because Orthodox are not themselves united, they have their little clicks. See the many examples over the decade of fighting in the holy land, priests and monks (religious men) fighting over churche turf. And yet we are to be called the Body of Christ.

The Authority of Pope (1) leader leads to the melting pot. To unity. Ending the silly cultural squabbles.

---

booboo, I appreciate your input but it is not true. The Orthodox Church is not isolated because of ethnicity and country any more than all Roman Catholics are culturally and politically on the same page because of Pope Francis. Let's not confuse earthly -- often political -- union with theological union. The Orthodox do not wish to submit to Rome. This does not mean we are not united theologically and mysteriologically in our universal Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis, including our mysteries, creeds, etc.

Your "many examples" of fighting over church turf sticks far, far, far worse to Rome than the other patriarchates.

Christ's prayer in John 17 is the only union that matters: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."

Union is not, cannot be, will not be achieved by submitting to a common worldly authority. Only by being united to Christ is union possible. This has absolutely nothing to do with canonical authority whatsoever.

We are the body of Christ, but scripturally that body has Christ as the head -- not the Pope or any other man.

---

K2 - who or what body of theologians / pastors / people decides what constitutes that union among the Orthodox branches? Just curious. You and your fellow Orthodox brethren seem very concerned in trusting one man (albeit his is one man consistently in communication with thousands of members within the Church, not in isolation) with the infallibility of speaking on faith and morals, but trust several bishops / governing pastors to be the last word on your faith and morals. I'm asking purely out of curiosity because I don't know, not to set up a "gotcha" question. If you don't trust one man as the last call on faith and morals, then what governing body do you trust with this same authority or is there one? Because from my ignorant eye, it seems fragmented among the Orthodox on who or what has the say for what you believe as Orthodox.

Also, I recommend you read this link on the filioque, that may be able to dash some of your preconceived notions on what Catholics truly believe. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/filioque

We have the councils and the fathers. All of the Orthodox churches are in communion with each other. There is no governing body but the episcopate.

It's not about trusting one person. It's about the holt spirit as a guarantor of infallibility to the whole church, not invested in one person.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I don't know what the rule is.

But why does it matter? In your church it's 1 vote and nothing else.

---

Was trying to determine how you handle disputes.

We have committees, councils and input from Bishops, but at the end of the day. The buck stops with the Pope. I think most/all of the time they look for majority consensus. Many things are discussed and no action is taken when there is not a clear path forward (Orthodox may be the same way).

If you look at history most of the councils were in response to something. Action was required.

And who is the Church? Your answer is the Pope. Mine requires no mental contortions. The church is the church; at the smallest unit the church is the episcopate, the bishop.

All ecumenical councils were in response to schism or great heresy. What new heresy requires a council? When the time comes, we will call them.

The Church has had councils and synods since the 7th. It's hard to have an ecumenical council when Rome declared us schismatic sand heretics.

Sigh. So the church teaches an error beginning in Toledo in the 500s, the error is pointed out, the error is repudiated for centuries by the popes and the east for the reasons I outline, formally adopted in the 1000s, and then the Latin church says "well that's not what we mean when we say it".

Tamu_mgm said:

---

Quote:

---

Short answer:

1. Filioque subordinates the holy spirit to somehow less than both the father and the son instead of co-equal. No it doesn't, because the Catholic church does not teach that the Holy Spirit is subordinate in any way. They are all co-equal and that is what the Church teaches, not what you think it implies with the filioque.

2. It confuses the cause of the Trinity - which is the father. Agreed upon in the Caholic Church - cause is the Father.

3. It distorts or perhaps confuses the necessary distinction between the Essence (ousia) and the persons (hypostases) of the Trinity. Again, no it doesn't because the Church teaches the Trinity consists of 3 co-equal persons, while being 3 different but still co-equal essences. Of course, 3 in 1 God.

4. It distorts the reality of the essence and energies distinction, causing confusion between the eternal procession of the spirit and the temporal mission. The Church does not teach the Holy Spirit is ever limited in any temporal fashion though. The filioque states: "Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son AS WELL AS the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father AND Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) AND not JUST the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20)." This does not mean the Holy Spirit is subordinate in any way nor does it undermine the eternal nature & essence & energy of the Holy Spirit.

4 is the big one. Taken to its logical conclusion the theology which the Filioque represents presents us with one of two options:

It denies our real interaction with God as God by suggesting we only interact with created grace. Nowhere does it define or imply our interaction with God is done solely through "created grace." Catholic prayer is done through all 3 persons of the Holy Trinity, as well as through the intercession of Mary and the saints.

OR

It subordinates God to a point where He is knowable in His essence. The Holy Trinity remains a mystery and can never be 100% understood by man. The Church does not undermine this or try to pretend and know God's natures 100%, because no man comes close to doing so.

Both of these are problematic.

---

---

What is your basis for this:
The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships.

Edit: moved to a new thread, this one has gone on long enough and is a tangled mess.

booboo91 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

yes, but those are only small differences and not necessary for salvation in the first place...So no big deal for a Protestant. So they wouldn't understand why you even bother to be concerned with something that's been that way for 500 years.

So all non-issues.

---

Unlike Protestants we agree on so much. Per our discussion, you only really have one issue. That is the authority of the pope (you see Filioque as minor).

We agree on the authority of Bishops (this huge stumbling block on authority for Protestants and apostolic succession is removed). You see no benefit in having a leader of the bishops. We do.

---

And a Protestant would say that Catholics and Protestant mostly agree on the important things. The rest are just details that are minor (i mean is a Pope really necessary for salvation)? So really a non-issue.

Obviously my bigger point is that you've taken a high and might approach that the things K2 or I brought up is just minor, but flipped around, a lot of what Catholics hold so dear would be minor or silly to a Protestant.

k2aggie07 said:

---

And who is the Church? Your answer is the Pope. Mine requires no mental contortions. The church is the church; at the smallest unit the church is the episcopate, the bishop.

---

K2,

I think you intentionally look for a wedge and a divide. We have the Same structure. We agree it is the bishops (apostolic succession). The pope is a bishop. Not a difficult concept.

Head Referee is selected amongs his peers. The QB is selected amongst his peers. The Corp Commander is selected amongst their peers. Peter the first pope selected amongst his peers by Jesus. Given unique authority, position by Jesus. All were equal in they were all apostles/ bishops, but they still had a leader.

We will agree to disagree for the 1000 time.

k2aggie07 said:

---

All ecumenical councils were in response to schism or great heresy. What new heresy requires a council? When the time comes, we will call them.

The Church has had councils and synods since the 7th. It's hard to have an ecumenical council when Rome declared us schismatic sand heretics.

---

To be clear- Orthodox church has authority as does the Catholic church (Apostolic Succession). But in the same way as I find it interesting that the temple was destroyed almost 2000 years ago and never rebuilt (Jesus is our new temple).

I find it interesting that the Catholic church continues to meet and have councils, we claim over and over in a very public way to have authority and the Orthodox church does not meet and have councils (the bold statement you made). It is almost by your lack of actions- you recognize the authority/role of the Rome. Note: I am certain this will rub you the wrong way, you are very proud Orthodox. Was just an observation. Seeing the fruits 1000 years later.

AgLiving06 said:

---

And a Protestant would say that Catholics and Protestant mostly agree on the important things. The rest are just details that are minor (i mean is a Pope really necessary for salvation)? So really a non-issue.

Obviously my bigger point is that you've taken a high and might approach that the things K2 or I brought up is just minor, but flipped around, a lot of what Catholics hold so dear would be minor or silly to a Protestant.

---

AgLiving06,

1) It takes (2) to build a relationship. So if one party is upset, that is all it takes. Both parties must want to reconcil.

2) the Protestants would be right- in that all Christians agree on the important things. We agree Jesus Christ is our lord and savior and calls us to love. I have said this many times: give me a Protestant (or even Jew and Muslim) who loves God and neighbor over a Catholic who does not love.

Focused on the bold portion to the detriment of the point.

It's ok booboo. Have your schism. As long as the teaching and attitude of Rome reflects the talking points you have shared here, it will persist.

I am not "proud Orthodox". I'm not cradle orthodox. I did not join the Orthodox Church but Christ. I didn't pick a team, I looked for the truth from an unbiased perspective - for nearly a decade. This led me to Orthodoxy. Can you honestly say the same about your conclusions?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Focused on the bold portion to the detriment of the point.

It's ok booboo. Have your schism. As long as the teaching and attitude of Rome reflects the talking points you have shared here, it will persist.

I am not "proud Orthodox". I'm not cradle orthodox. I did not join the Orthodox Church but Christ. I didn't pick a team, I looked for the truth from an unbiased perspective - for nearly a decade. This led me to Orthodoxy. Can you honestly say the same about your conclusions?

---

You don't have to be cradle to be proud.

Yes I can say the same for my spiritual journey (although, I did not have to travel as far as you did). I have also searched ernestly for the truth for the past 15-20 years.

Agreed we are all part of the body of Christ and Orthodox and Catholics are brothers. We share closely the Fullness of Truth. We need to focus on what we have in common. Like looking at the good things your siblings do instead of the negative.

I would say we have beat this horse enough. We will agree to disagree. I am proud Catholic you are a proud Orthodox. Now let us go love others instead of bickering.