Question- Where did the church go wrong- off the tracks- Great Apostate?

3,153 Views | 43 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by FTACo88-FDT24dad
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Second, Pavia Siena Basel Ferrara Florence was hardly ecumenical. It was not convened to defend against heresy, it was convened for political purposes to unite both internally (Huss wars) and externally (against Islam).
K2, Your response was long, did not include everything. Will provide just broad comment on Florence and other councils.

1) We live in a complex and ever changing world. I wish things were clean and clear cut, but they are not. It gets messy at times through history. Understanding context is helpful. Note: you would agree with this- your comments on Council of Florence, all the little details.

2) I will be the first one to admit, politics is involved in the church. Politics is also everywhere else- home, family, friends, work.

3) Understand Context- With the fall of Rome- Catholic church went in and filled the vacuum and lead and became involved in the politics- involved with rulers, kings. The Eastern Church had its own set of issues- being invaded and controlled by the Muslims. Most of the councils had some drama, challenge that was happening.

To me it is not a big deal that some in the Orthodox church agreed and then changed postion on the Filioque- 1000 years ago (I agree with your comments on context of Florence). Today, the bigger issue for me, is why we still squabble today.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bull crap. There is no analog in the east to the king-priest that the pope became. There is no excusing the mixture of earthly and heavenly authority. There is no practice in the east, for example, of priests or bishops fighting in battle. Bloodshed is grounds for being deposed and penance from the chalice.

The church in the east was subject to imperial politics, and later Caliphate rule, yes. But orthodoxy shined all the more brightly in the face of political and religious persecution (men like St Maximos by imperial heretics and St John Damascene by Islamic rule).

The papacy became a political office, and religion and theology became tools of political convenience.

Those two things aren't close to the same thing.
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As someone who is drawn to (and deciding between) the Orthodox and RCC, I wonder...does God really care if we have the filioque right...as long as we profess the Trinity...and in light of "just adoring the mystery?"
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Further...when considering the two churches, it seems to me the filioque is more of a pissing contest about who is right...and the Papacy is the REAL issue.

Forgive my ignorance, if I'm off base.
booboo91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Bull crap. There is no analog in the east to the king-priest that the pope became. There is no excusing the mixture of earthly and heavenly authority. There is no practice in the east, for example, of priests or bishops fighting in battle. Bloodshed is grounds for being deposed and penance from the chalice.

The church in the east was subject to imperial politics, and later Caliphate rule, yes. But orthodoxy shined all the more brightly in the face of political and religious persecution (men like St Maximos by imperial heretics and St John Damascene by Islamic rule).

The papacy became a political office, and religion and theology became tools of political convenience.

Those two things aren't close to the same thing.
I do agree Orthodox church did not have the political power of the western church. Again- most of your history you were under the control of others. Different circumstances than West.

Later- I will add more about the politics of the Orthodox church. Note: you are also run by failed men- you may not be as dirty as the West- by I am positive you are not squeaky clean. Like Catholic church you have some failed men in power, along with your saints.

GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Personally, I would love to see the Orthodox Church say, re: the filioque, "who the hell knows...Divine Mystery"...

And the RCC to call the Pope "the Bishop of Rome"...a wise and respected elder, but unable to make unilateral proclamations.

That's the church I'd like to attend.

Ultimately, I fear, it comes down to pride. According to one of K2's book suggestions, that's the antithesis of humility...the first step to deification or theosis (apologies if I butchered that, K2).
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GP, the Orthodox Church doesn't look at the creed as an explanation and our opinion of the Trinity very much is a holy mystery. It's been revealed to us by the fathers and we hold to their explanations as divinely inspired. Only three fathers have the title of Theologian in the Orthodox Church - John (the Apostle), St Gregory Nazianzus, and St Symeon. Other fathers taught, and defended the faith against heresy (like st Athanasius, st basil, etc). We refuse to add, because it was given to us by people who were inspired by God to add explanation to defend the faith from heresy, and subsequently approved by councils (that is, the whole church).

Even the creed in general is thought of differently. It's not a list or statement of our belief, but a symbol of what we believe. It represents the faith, it describes it...its not exhaustive etc.

I had a little more time to sit down now, so I'll edit this to say:

1. The ecumenical councils were called to defend the faith. They do not exist to create conciliatory positions toward variance in opinion, theological or otherwise. They most certainly do not exist to act as ecclesiastical parliaments to decide "which pope is the real pope" which is what the Roman church was doing in the aftermath of the Council of Constance (at one point there were actually three concurrent popes...!).

2. Ultimately, though Basel-Ferrara-Florence wasn't a failed council because of who did or didn't vote, or who was or wasn't represented, or who did or didn't accept the vote, or even because the Orthodox present were under house arrest for fourteen years and signed onto "union" under what can only be called duress. It was a failed council because, quite simply, what it taught was not true. And how do we know? Because the church did not endorse it (see, alternately, the other councils considered Ecumenical).

3. And even if we say, for a moment, that Florence was a genuine and authentic union, if we assume that the Patriarchate of Constantinople works like Rome does (i.e., that if the chief bishop rules on something, it's binding on the whole church), then the union between Rome and the East was really only a union between Rome itself (the various parties in the divided west) Constantinople, and Russia (who was represented at the council by a Constantinople appointee). There was no union, then, with the Church of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Serbia, Bulgaria, or Cyprus -- all of which were autocephalous churches in communion with each other (and Constantinople and Russia) at the time of the council. Again, this is hardly ecumenical.

4. And, again, even if we play along, and say the union was real, Russia had a very vocal and violent rejection of the union and in 1443 the three Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch met in Jerusalem and condemned the Council of Florence as "vile" and Patriarch Metrophanes of Constantinople as a heretic for accepting it.

////

We say this in our churches on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (since 843) and this is the order of things.

"As the prophets have seen, as the apostles have taught, as the Church has received, as the teachers have set forth in dogmas, as the whole world has understood, as Grace has shone forth, as the truth was demonstrated, as falsehood was banished, as wisdom was emboldened, as Christ has awarded...This is the Faith of the apostles, this is the Faith of the fathers, this is the Faith of the Orthodox, this Faith has established the whole world."

The filioque is not part of the faith of the prophets, apostles, what the church received, what was dogmatized, etc.

The truth is, schism is as old as the church. It is a sad and unfortunate thing. But ultimately we don't hold to the church or humans or bishops for the truth, but Christ. This is the underlying mistake of the claims of the papacy.
GasPasser97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Appreciate the reply
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
booboo91 said:

AgLiving06 said:




As K2 said, you avoided the question...but your own answer is kind of odd.

Were all the bishops against the Pope? No and it's quite clear that many people worked hard to salvage the relationship.

Is that relevant at all? Also no.

In the end, it's not about what the Pope believed or what the other Bishops believed. It was about what the ecumenical councils debated and agreed was from God.
It is relevant- because your claim is absolutely false, the Pope Did NOT act alone.

The truth is the pope did not act alone. the East did not agree, tensions were high. Men were angry with one another.

I will acknowledge the West could of done more to salvage the relationship. Done a better job with the politics, handling the situation. Note: the blame is not all on West. The East also had stubborn men and still do. See your recent conference in July 2016- when so many stubborn men did not show up.

Oh..which of the Bishop of Rome's peers also incorporated the Filioque?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Back to the OP -

I think you should check out this book, "The Apostasy That Wasn't: The Extraordinary Story of the Unbreakable Early Church" by Rod Bennett.

Start reading it for free: http://a.co/2omyqqM
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.