Schism Of 1054

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1170188' date='Jan 19 2007, 02:00 PM']
Interesting points dairygirl...
OT
Once again, I wish the nature of the "hello I do not rep the church" was explained. WHen reading Dairygirl I have no idea if she is athesit, anti-catholic, rad-trad, evangelical, budist. This is important in reading her comments. It almost needs to come down to knowing what their scarlett letter is, or not letting them post. It is confusing.

[/quote]I join my voice to yours to petition admin to require ppl to state their religious affiliation when they register, with the penalty of banishment if they lie about it. It makes the posts so much more understandable. Other discussion groups require this, and it's helpful to everyone.

Jay

[123]

[quote]PhatMassers,

I'm pretty sure that y'all think that the EOC broke from the Catholic Church.

What is your reasoning on that?

Thanks,
Paddington

EDIT:
Sorry this should've been in 'debate[/quote]

Quite a plethera of issues were on the table at the 1054 debate but, here are a few:

Obviously, the biggest issue with Catholics and many other Christians (liturgical and non-liturgical) is the [b]Papacy[/b]. But, for the Orthodox split in description is that of the [b]Filioque[/b]: [i]Filioque is a word that changes the Latin version of Nicene Creed to include the wording [Spiritus Sanctus] qui ex Patre Filioque procedit or "[Holy Spirit] who proceeds from the Father and the Son." [/i] <orthodoxwiki, [url="http://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism#Doctrinal_issues:_the_Filioque>"]http://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism#Doctr...he_Filioque>[/url]


The Latin and Eastern issues of the papacy and the filoque were the two main disputable issues. I'm quite sure there were others subsequent to those however, not of as much importance as filoque and the papacy. These are wonderful issues to breed discourse on. Yet, they are very, very deep issues and require alot of knowledge about more or less the Creed than the papacy.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's too hard to pigeon-hole my beliefs. i would say i'm christian, but that's got a whole lotta baggage on it that i don't want. maybe i could see having a few words or something describing your beliefs in your profile. i do see how not knowing makes it hard to know how to respond.


but to the issue of early writings. i've said it before, but it does bear saying again as no one else has. if you look at all those early church writings, even the ones from clement, and read them in the spirit of a unifying church, not necessarily in any way infallible, you'll see a different way to interpret history. ie just a unifying and persuasive authority.

the only convincing quotes are from firmilian and cyprian. firmilian was not a believer, but in fact a non-believer in the autority of rome. catholics assert rome's assertion of power indicates infalliblility etc, but it could just mean he knows he's a unifyer. cyprian... there's the cyprianic theory that said that.. hmm.. i think it said the church was suppose to be one, but that doesn't necessarily imply what catholics say it does. i do know cardinal newman talks about the cyprianic theory briefly.

Newman said the alternative unifying thory is a formidable belief. he said the chruch grew like an acorn tree. whether it grew through God's power into what it is now, or by man's power, he said early history could be interpreted either way. the reason he was saying this is because people were dissing the chuch because the early text is so ambiguos, and he wanted them to realize the organic nature of the church: even if it were true, it's not gonna just spring up; if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church. i myself am one of those people that probably fall into who he had in mind. if it weren't for the infallibility thing, i might be catholic, but given the difficulties..

when i look at the question of whether hte orthodox broke away or who did. i see it exemplified by the pope steven (or was it victor?) controversy where the guy said to the pope who excommunicated his people "in excommunicating us from you, you've excommunicated yourself from all". again, it goes back to how you take the pope's assertion to excommunicate. (remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.

the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....


that's a mouthful... i'm gonna have to bookmark this post.

[Katholikos]

Dairygirl wrote: [quote] if it weren't for the infallibility thing, i might be catholic[/quote]If it weren't for the infallibility thing, I would not be Catholic! If Jesus had not endowed the leaders (and their successors) of the one and only Church he established with infallibility so that we could be sure that The Twelve taught the same Truth and nothing but the Truth, and that we in the 21st century could be sure that what we believed is the same Truth that was taught in the first Christian century, I would be outta here and outta Christianity altogether. Infallibility pertains only to Faith and Morals. Without it, Christianity is just a guessing game. I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Also, I googled the cyprianic theory and got a page with a discussion at phatmass with me that Al started.
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/lofiversion/index.php/t25214.html"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/lofiversion...php/t25214.html[/url]

I realized I forgot it's also interesting to mention that cyprian never fell in line with the pope (cyprian being the one pepole point to a lot as an influential quote at catholic.com). He didn't fall in line so to speak until the next pope came around.


i don't think chrisitanity necessarily needs to be laid out in black and white. sure, it's a guessing game. but that's life. it reflects the reality of our situation. the drama of the question mark i like to call it. when it comes down to it, i rely on jesus, so i consider myself christian. i could go on for hours describing what that means or doesn't mean, but. (most christians think it's simple yet condtradict each other, and even the catholic church doesn't explain it that in depth)
i don't hink you need to be christian to be saved. sometimes i think i'll just not be a christian to walk the talk, but i can't bring myself to. i do rely on him and can't pretend that i don't.

[Paddington]

Thanks for the more replies.

dairygirl,

I'll see about putting something about my beliefs in my profile.
But, one short way of saying it is that I'm not a Christian. But I used to be. I didn't give up my interest when I stopped believing 2 years ago. I even converted back for a short stint. I get close to converting on a regular basis. Or at least it feels like it.
But I've been praying about joing the Catholic Church for about 8 years. Previously I had been raised nominally Roman Catholic. Then I was Protestant (more or less) for about 9 years.

Peace,
Paddington Edited January 22, 2007 by Paddington

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, if you want a unique perspective on many catholic issues, i know a lot. but you should also get a good catholic response too. i am very familiar with...
faith and works. i also recommend raphael on this
catholic social theory.. also Al, though jaimie’s unique in catholic perspective
extra nulla.. outside the CC no salvation... i suppose phatcatholic
authority of the cc... no one would have came to mind, but that link i justposted have to say apouthon.. though i haven' seen him for awhile
eucharist.. again no one in particular
god’s existence and philosophical theology… jeff
edit.. can't forget cathlic morality (and right v. left ideoloy)... socrates

others are knowledgeable too.. but i thought i'd help a brother out with what i know as good sources

Edited January 22, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Paddington]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172684' date='Jan 22 2007, 12:41 AM']
well, if you want a unique perspective on many catholic issues, i know a lot. but you should also get a good catholic response too. i am very familiar with...
faith and works. i also recommend raphael on this
catholic social theory.. also Al, though jaimie’s unique in catholic perspective
extra nulla.. outside the CC no salvation... i suppose phatcatholic
authority of the cc... no one would have came to mind, but that link i justposted have to say apouthon.. though i haven' seen him for awhile
eucharist.. again no one in particular
god’s existence and philosophical theology… jeff
edit.. can't forget cathlic morality (and right v. left ideoloy)... socrates

others are knowledgeable too.. but i thought i'd help a brother out with what i know as good sources
[/quote]

Thanks dairygirl

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172446' date='Jan 21 2007, 06:25 PM']
if you were Peter, you wouldn't just say hey i'm infallible, watch out; it's be more natural (if it were true, i'm sure he had a time coming to grips with what it was... and i'm not even sure, even if the chruch is true,, whether he would have to even know (or did know) the extent of his power) Newman was resistant of hte first vaitcan council to vote yea on infallibilty because of ehse historical difficulties, as he put it, even though he himself believed in it. he was afraid of how outsiders would take the catholic church. i myself am one of those people that probably fall into who he had in mind. if it weren't for the infallibility thing, i might be catholic, but given the difficulties..[/quote]

The doctrine of infallibility actually strips the Pope of power more than giving him greater power. For one, the reason this doctrine is necessary is due to human weakness. Without Christ's personal assurance that His Church would never fall into heresy and that assurance being connected to a specific individual, we would be left without a North Star (to use a little metaphor). Of course, first you have to come to the conclusion that the Pope is who the Church claims he is. But putting that aside, I don't think Peter would say, "Hey, I'm infallible, so watch out," but rather he would be greatly humbled by realization that, ultimately, he is merely another one of God's many instruments... a very important instrument, but what's a scapel without a surgeon?

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172446' date='Jan 21 2007, 06:25 PM'](remember too that many of the bishops back then were called "pope") it's all a matter of perspective.[/quote]

Which makes perfect sense considering "pope" comes from the Greek for "father." We call all priests by that title

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1172446' date='Jan 21 2007, 06:25 PM']the orthodox can remain separate precisely because this ambiguity. it's not that they aren't aware of the quotes you provide from catholic.com.....
[/quote]

Good point... we need to understand the basis in Scripture and Tradition for our beliefs, but it's not like everybody who disagrees with us is illiterate.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to the catholics favor, newman did lean towards the CC because if the early chuch was following the pope, and the pope is declaring infalliblity, in oder to maintain the unifying pope, you would want to stay catholic. (that, in addition to the arguments in favor of te CC, as ambiguous as they are)

the orthodox of coure see the popes declarationofpower, not as probably legit to follo histry, but as the CC breaking awayfrom what's supposeto be done, and the CC as a source of disunity.