|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 9:47:20 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 2195
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Also, the Orthodox Church is not legalistic, it is Pastoral; so a lot depends on you. All I can suggest to you is to speak to an Orthodox priest near you who can give you a much better answer than I can.
I appreciate both of your responses - but not exactly what I was looking for...
So...there is no Rite or defined process by which converts are accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church?
I know from Church history that the early Church practiced a very distinct "path" by which converts came to the faith and into communion with the Church. This took the form of instruction, the Church believing that one must be well-informed to commit to communion with the Church in the normative case.
The Catholics have formalized this...I am guessing the EO have not...
My hypothesis in asking is that the Rite of Initiation would tell a lot about where each Church accepted what was instructed by the other, and would tend to highlight the differences.
_____________________________
Do we honestly believe that the firefighter, who gave up his life on Sept. 11, 2001 on his 10th trip back into WTC Tower 1, saving civilians...is eternally separated from God, just because he never set foot in a Church, or cracked open a Bible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 10:41:35 AM
|
|
|
Ps103
Posts: 13115
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: Here, now
Status: offline
|
I seem to recall Unworthyseraphim saying it took three years for him to become Orthodox.
Not sure exactly what he was before, but I think it was a Pentecostal church.
_____________________________
Fasten your seat belts...it's going to be a bumpy night.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 11:32:48 AM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Original: unworthyseraphim
Dear Giver,
Well I would suggest that the Spirit still governs the Church and always has. That does not mean the free will of human beings is overthown thereby. And those who are set as the shepherds of the Church can fail, and fail badly...this is why the larger principle of synodality is important, point 12. This allows other faithful sheperds, and even laymen to deal with seriously error shepherds in the name of the whole Church, and in that we see the Governance of the Holy Spirit.
As for supposed shepherds of the Church who don't believe in the Holy Spirit, then may I suggest that they are not perhaps even in the Church much less ministers of it regardless of their title and ordination, and if they are then they certainly cannot be classed among the faithful and know from scripture the end of those who fail to obtain a proper wedding garment when the Church is gather to the wedding banquet.
Just because a group calls itself Christian and believes itself to be part of the Church does not automatically make it so. The same is true for individuals. I can call myself a pumpkin, but I will never taste nice stewed with allspice, nutmeg, and cinnamon. Pumpkiness requires growing from a pumpkin viine. Well before I get embroild in a discussion of who is the Church, I will leave it there.
Post #: 75
http://forums.christianity.com/m_1619/mpage_3/key_0/tm.htm
I like what unworthyseraphim said in his first paragraph, reminds me of...
James 1:1
Greetings!!!
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion:
Greetings!!!
In Jesus Name,
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 4:04:32 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
I had a few thoughts I wanted to share:
the recent discussion has shown the truth of dred's statement that these issues won't be solved through debate
on both sides of the "schism", there is much conviction and security in the faith
there are many questions I don't know the answer to. I am no scholar.
certainly I have seen enough to be Catholic. but I have only respect for Orthodox Christians in good conscience, of which there are several on this board, in my judgment
I just pray for union and the death of old prejudices on both sides
so I apologize for coming across as confrontational if I have. and I thank you for humbling me.
May we all come to full unity of Sucession from the Apostles
peace,
pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 11:16:32 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Who else claimed all power in heaven and earth has been given unto me.
Jesus Christ declared all power he was the one with full supreme and universal power and the care of souls and still Is and Christ Jesus did delicate that office to one he called another Advocate one who would take his place while not relinquishing the power he has sent the Holy Spirit and he spoke about one who would take his place on earth he gave full supreme and universal power the care of souls to the divine person of the Holy Spirit, he said in John 14:16-17
16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17even the Spirit of truth,
John 14:6-17
I Am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life
6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
12"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
John 16:7
The Work of the Holy Spirit
7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
In Jesus name,
< Message edited by PeterD -- 9/11/2010 6:39:24 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/10/2010 8:58:49 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Hey PeterD,
I think the Holy Spirit could be called the Vicar of Christ, but since this title is from early centuries applied to the Successor of Simon Peter, it would lead to much confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/10/2010 9:17:20 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
one of the interesting things about the early Church was the Sacramental understanding. From the first, the historic Church believed that matter could transmit spiritual healing, as in the case of those healed through Paul's hands and handkerchiefs
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/10/2010 9:20:29 PM
|
|
|
seemorelight
Posts: 8
Joined: 8/28/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
The True Church is not a denomination, but all who believe in Christ as their Savior.
Amen and Amen!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/10/2010 9:27:36 PM
|
|
|
seemorelight
Posts: 8
Joined: 8/28/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
know from Church history that the early Church practiced a very distinct "path" by which converts came to the faith and into communion with the Church. This took the form of instruction, the Church believing that one must be well-informed to commit to communion with the Church in the normative case.
That is not what my bible says. if we are to go by the first 3,000 converts, they asked "men and brethren what shall we do"
The reply was "repent and be baptised" no mention of instruction or being well informed. It goes on to say that 3,000 were baptised.
Religion has made complicated what the scripture makes simple.
Apart from repenting and being baptised they continued daily in fellowship, prayer, apostles doctrine and eating meals together....in their homes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/10/2010 9:39:26 PM
|
|
|
seemorelight
Posts: 8
Joined: 8/28/2010
Status: offline
|
I think that you will find that the church was built on the apostles and prophets and Jesus who was the chief cornerstone. No mention of Peter specifically.
Eph 2:20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.
As we all know every building has to have a cornerstone from which the whole structure is built around. In the case of the church it is Jesus and no other.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/10/2010 10:05:27 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: seemorelight
I think that you will find that the church was built on the apostles and prophets and Jesus who was the chief cornerstone. No mention of Peter specifically.
Eph 2:20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.
As we all know every building has to have a cornerstone from which the whole structure is built around. In the case of the church it is Jesus and no other. So it concludes there is "one" chief cornerstone, and One, Holy, Catholic (complete/whole) and Apostolic Church built upon the chief cornerstone. Or do you believe one chief cornerstone and multiple denominations, each with their own distinct faith, built upon it?
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/11/2010 12:06:31 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
the whole "rock" issue is interesting.
the Orthodox Church in America says on their site that the rock in Mt 16:18 is not referring to Peter, while acknowledgeing that Peter's name means "Rock"
http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=28&SID=3
But the fathers generally held that it was, includint Basil, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ephraim, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, etc
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm
while also holding to other compatible interpretations, such as Christ being the Rock, and Peter's confession being the Rock, etc. and to my knowledge, none say that it wasn't.
(the Church has always held to the mystical sense of scripture, which allows for multiple harmonious yet different interpretation)
As was pointed out above, Augustine said that Peter was built on Christ, and not Christ on Peter. But everyone acknowledges that. And even in his Retractions at the end, Augustine does not deny the "Peter is the rock" idea, but leaves it open to his readers. (he also confirms that he had written that Peter was the rock on which the Church was built)
For Augustine had written
"Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built."
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_aug.htm
Augustine also held that Rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail is the Petrine Succession of the Roman Church.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm
As the link above shows, he also said that "Peter bore the person of the Church"
So how could the fathers have been so wrong to the point where so many of them testify to Peter being the rock--Chrysostom, e.g.--and none saying that he wasn't?
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/11/2010 2:17:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/11/2010 3:03:42 PM
|
|
|
Acolyte4236
Posts: 5
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline
|
Patricius,
Plenty of Catholic and non-Catholic academics note that Ambrose didn’t teach the Filioque. If you think they are mistaken, then you need to give an argument that shows that they are. Otherwise, their claims are left standing.
Second, part of the problem in looking at the citations from Ambrose is that the language is capable of referring to consubstantiality rather than hypostatic origination. This is why it is necessary to look at how an author uses such terms. Ambrose not only uses in, from and through interchangeably with respect to the Son and the Spirit, but also with respect to the Father. So it is not possible to argue from simply his use of such terms relative to the Spirit’s alleged hypostatic origination from the language of “procession” from the Son since forcing the language in that way would also imply for Ambrose that the Father proceeds from the Son and the Spirit or the Son proceeds from the Spirit and the Father in terms of hypostatic origination.
Basil’s noting that the joined through the Son isn’t the Filioque, but a claim about hypostatic consubstantiality and mediation. The Filioque doesn’t mean that the Spirit qua person is mediated by the Son, but is from the Son as from the Father as one principle. The Son is a cause on the Filioque, not a conduit. “Through” doesn’t imply of itself that the causal power of the Father is given to the Son, which the Filioque requires. Hence the material from Basil doesn’t prove that he held the doctrine. Most scholars now admit that he didn’t and that the passages attributed to him at Florence that were used to prove that he did were corrupted texts.
Simply claiming over and over again that Maximus taught the Filioque isn’t proof that he did. I’ve already noted that Maximus in his Letter to Marius denies that “procession” can be said of the Spirit from the Son. Yet the Filioque doctrine says that it can be used of the Spirit from the Son. Hence the two are contradictory. No specialist in Maximus for at least the last half century that I know of thinks that Maximus taught the Filioque doctrine.
The OCA would be dumb to think that Peter didn’t mean rock. That is not and never has been the question. The question is whether Peter is so named for his confession, which is the truth of Christ's Messiahship or ”rock” upon which the church is built or whether Peter is thus given a non-apostolic and non-episcopal chrism that is passed on without ordination to some, but not all of his successors. (Bishops in Antioch were his successors too, btw.)
For an examination of the Greek, Aramaic and Syriac, see Caragounis’ monograph, http://www.amazon.com/Beihefte-Zeitschrift-Neutestamentliche-Wissenschaft-Alteren/dp/3110123967/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284228188&sr=1-2
As for citing the Fathers, anyone can spoof text the Fathers like they can spoof texts the Scriptures. Citing texts from a Catholic website with no context, no analysis, linguistic, theological or otherwise is hardly proof. It is proof to people who haven't read the scholarship to know better.
If the Fathers held that other interpretations were acceptable, then the Catholic interpretation is one of many and not necessarily de fide in their judgment. The point of Augustine is that he doesn’t represent the Catholic reading as of the deposit of faith. If it was, then Augustine didn’t know it. If Augustine knew the deposit of faith sufficiently well, then at the time the Catholic reading was not de fide. Either way, the material from Augustine can't help the Catholic claiims.
As for mystical readings alongside, that is fine, but we need to know that Augustine took the Catholic reading to be the historical sense first and hence what the text meant. But Augustine indicates that the historical sense can bear two meanings, so appealing to mystical sense is beside the point and irrelevant.
Second, note that in the commentary on the Psalms, Augustine notes that it is “in that confession” Peter is so called. The focus is on the confession, not a non-apostolic chrism given to him alone.
Third, as I’ve noted already, none of the material you are presenting is new so simply cut and pasting from Catholic apologetic sites is not persuasive.
As for all of the Father supposedly teaching something wrong and not denying it, I deny that that is an accurate characterization. The Father’s widely teach a kind of Petrine primacy. That much is obvious. What is in dispute is what that primacy amounted to. Hence I don’t think they were wrong. I think the Vat 1 reading of them is wrong. Second, none of them would deny the Vat 1 reading explicitly if it didn’t exist to deny. That too is quite possible. It is like asking why since all of the Fathers taught justification by faith that none of them explicitly denied the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone. Simple, it wasn’t around to deny and it wasn’t a conceptual possibility given their framework. Protestants make use of the Father's language on justification as if it is proof of a later conception. It isn't. It is just another instance of the word-concept fallacy.
It seems to me a bit more than accidental that the dogma of the papacy isn’t defined until Rome is in schism not only with the East, but has helped to precipitate and participate in a schism with all of those in the west that thought otherwise. It is easy to get consensus with a rump synod. Perhaps that is why it doesn’t get defined until the 19th century.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 6:01:49 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
As you can see, I don't know much. But as my last post showed, teh fathers believed the Church was built on Peter, as the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon also said.
And I know that Basil and Didymus said that the Spirit has no being but that recieved from the Son, and that Gregory of Nyssa said that the Spirit can only be distinguished from the Son by saying that the Spirit is from the Son.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 6:16:19 AM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
As you can see, I don't know much. But as my last post showed, teh fathers believed the Church was built on Peter, as the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon also said.
And I know that Basil and Didymus said that the Spirit has no being but that recieved from the Son, and that Gregory of Nyssa said that the Spirit can only be distinguished from the Son by saying that the Spirit is from the Son.
Pat,
It really seems that you are staunch in remaining a Roman Catholic. Over and over you state your unwavering belief in the papacy. You are an RC through and through. So I ask, what is the point of going on and on? You're a Roman Catholic, we get it. You are convinced this is what you should be. We get it.
I don't think you're interested or open to changing. Certainly neither am I. It is what it is. So again, what is the point?
You want to see unity between our two churches. Ok, but our discussing it here isn't going to make it so. And trying to convince you of the Orthodox position is like banging one's head up against the wall. We will get nowhere. I think that's evident in all these back and forth posts for pages and pages!
Take care.
Heavendweller
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 7:15:44 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 2195
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Basil’s noting that the joined through the Son isn’t the Filioque, but a claim about hypostatic consubstantiality and mediation. The Filioque doesn’t mean that the Spirit qua person is mediated by the Son, but is from the Son as from the Father as one principle. The Son is a cause on the Filioque, not a conduit. “Through” doesn’t imply of itself that the causal power of the Father is given to the Son, which the Filioque requires. Hence the material from Basil doesn’t prove that he held the doctrine. Most scholars now admit that he didn’t and that the passages attributed to him at Florence that were used to prove that he did were corrupted texts.
...to be fair to all, what bearing do you feel this actually has on the practice of faith and the process of participating in a relationship with God, through Jesus and supported by the institution of Church? Are the liturgical and sacramental practices of these Churches invalid or unsupportable because of the above paragraph?
I see the discussion as two people presenting aspects of faith, who can prove why they believe what they believe, without being able to prove the belief itself. A discussion that has run its full course regarding faith ends up at the point...where fact is exhausted and all that is left is the unprovable belief.
At that point in any of these discussions, heavendweller hit the nail on the head...
_____________________________
Do we honestly believe that the firefighter, who gave up his life on Sept. 11, 2001 on his 10th trip back into WTC Tower 1, saving civilians...is eternally separated from God, just because he never set foot in a Church, or cracked open a Bible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 12:34:27 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Basil’s noting that the joined through the Son isn’t the Filioque, but a claim about hypostatic consubstantiality and mediation. The Filioque doesn’t mean that the Spirit qua person is mediated by the Son, but is from the Son as from the Father as one principle. The Son is a cause on the Filioque, not a conduit. “Through” doesn’t imply of itself that the causal power of the Father is given to the Son, which the Filioque requires. Hence the material from Basil doesn’t prove that he held the doctrine. Most scholars now admit that he didn’t and that the passages attributed to him at Florence that were used to prove that he did were corrupted texts.
...to be fair to all, what bearing do you feel this actually has on the practice of faith and the process of participating in a relationship with God, through Jesus and supported by the institution of Church? Are the liturgical and sacramental practices of these Churches invalid or unsupportable because of the above paragraph?
I see the discussion as two people presenting aspects of faith, who can prove why they believe what they believe, without being able to prove the belief itself. A discussion that has run its full course regarding faith ends up at the point...where fact is exhausted and all that is left is the unprovable belief.
At that point in any of these discussions, heavendweller hit the nail on the head...
Dog,
You understand my point exactly! The purpose of my previous post (#3015) was to show that we've arrived at a stalemate in this dialogue here. We are at a standstill, with each person firmly entrenched in their particular faith tradition.
So, what to do next? Well, what not to do is go on and on merely stating the same points over and over with no progress of arriving at any consensus.
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 1:18:29 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
Basil’s noting that the joined through the Son isn’t the Filioque, but a claim about hypostatic consubstantiality and mediation. The Filioque doesn’t mean that the Spirit qua person is mediated by the Son, but is from the Son as from the Father as one principle. The Son is a cause on the Filioque, not a conduit. “Through” doesn’t imply of itself that the causal power of the Father is given to the Son, which the Filioque requires. Hence the material from Basil doesn’t prove that he held the doctrine. Most scholars now admit that he didn’t and that the passages attributed to him at Florence that were used to prove that he did were corrupted texts.
...to be fair to all, what bearing do you feel this actually has on the practice of faith and the process of participating in a relationship with God, through Jesus and supported by the institution of Church? Are the liturgical and sacramental practices of these Churches invalid or unsupportable because of the above paragraph?
I see the discussion as two people presenting aspects of faith, who can prove why they believe what they believe, without being able to prove the belief itself. A discussion that has run its full course regarding faith ends up at the point...where fact is exhausted and all that is left is the unprovable belief.
At that point in any of these discussions, heavendweller hit the nail on the head...
Dog,
You understand my point exactly! The purpose of my previous post (#3015) was to show that we've arrived at a stalemate in this dialogue here. We are at a standstill, with each person firmly entrenched in their particular faith tradition.
So, what to do next? Well, what not to do is go on and on merely stating the same points over and over with no progress of arriving at any consensus.
Yes, I agree, please allow this scripture to remind us of what the Lord Jesus said, "It shall not be so among you." And why he said this.
What are we to learn from this today.
7For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
11for it is written,
"As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God." Romans 14:7:11
Matthew 20:20-28
A Mother’s Request
20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21And he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom." 22Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" They said to him, "We are able." 23He said to them, "You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." 24And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
The Lord Jesus said, "Truly, truly," even to his own" I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.
No arriving at a stalemate in this dialogue here...
John 14:6-17
I Am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life
6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."
8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
12"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
In His Name,
< Message edited by PeterD -- 9/13/2010 1:49:01 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 1:54:02 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 2195
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, what to do next? Well, what not to do is go on and on merely stating the same points over and over with no progress of arriving at any consensus.
...and I'll repeat what I have said before in this regard...if through my posts and my efforts here, someone was inspired to investigate the Orthodox practices of Christianity, and find themselves at home in the Eastern Church, rather than my beloved Roman Catholic faith...
...I would consider that a triumphant victory and an excellent return on the time I invested in those posts...
So, I'll see y'all in the Christian Doctrine threads. Let's go convert some Protestants back to one of the ancient communions of the Apostolic See...
_____________________________
Do we honestly believe that the firefighter, who gave up his life on Sept. 11, 2001 on his 10th trip back into WTC Tower 1, saving civilians...is eternally separated from God, just because he never set foot in a Church, or cracked open a Bible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 8:20:23 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
would all of the Orthodox on this thread see it as a triumphant victory if they lead someone to the Catholic Church?In any, case, this thread is about the N.T. Chruch and Apostolic Succession.
This Church and these that have succeeded from the Apostles taught the things that the EO and Catholics agree on, as well as the Chruch being built on Peter. and that Rome holds primacy based on Succession from St. Simon Rock.
They also taught, as St. Cyril of Alexandria says, that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, being poured forth from both in the way of essence, or in other words, from the Father through the Son.
So I pray for the unity of all Christians.
peace of Jesus Christ
P.S. Hopefully I will get a chance to respond to Acolyte's response to my post on the Church being built on Peter above.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 8:27:57 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Filioque doesn’t mean that the Spirit qua person is mediated by the Son, but is from the Son as from the Father as one principle. The Son is a cause on the Filioque, not a conduit.
that is not true. as the Joint Consultation says--the Bishops of which have succeeded from the Apostles-- the Western tradition is that there is only one Cause in the Trinity. This is the Father. That is why Florence recognized only one Principle. This is true because the Son's role in the pouring forth of the Spirit is derived entirely from the Father.
BTW, the Father, who is the sole source of the Trinity, is not "alone" for this reason. Likewise, the Pope is not alone in the supremacy His judgements, which are infallibly assisted by the Holy Spirit, not to mention the Son and the Father, and not to mention the previous sainted Popes and especially St. Peter.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/13/2010 9:15:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/13/2010 9:19:19 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
As to your argument from Ambrose, well: a Council approved by all the Eastern Patriarchs as well as the Vicar of Christ defined the Filioque--i.e. Florence, which, like the early Ecumenical Councils, such as Nicaea was rejected by huge groups of the Church. So if you think that Ambrose denied it--even though he said explicitly "the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son"--then I would need to see the text you refer to.
In any case, even if Ambrose didn', he did not deny it, and Leo, Augustine, Hilary, etc, did teach it and beileve it, along with the Eastern fathers like St. Gregory of Nazienzen. Just as Gregory of Nyssa says that the Spirit cannot be distinguished from the Son without saying that he is from the Son, so likewise Gregory Nazienzen says that the Spirit's being is from the Son, so that if there was a time when the Son didn't exist, then there was a time when the Spirit didn't. And this is in Basil also, and Didymus, etc.
Peace of Jesus Christ,
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/15/2010 2:09:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/14/2010 8:21:03 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Basil’s noting that the joined through the Son isn’t the Filioque, but a claim about hypostatic consubstantiality and mediation
that is what the Filioque means. and Basil said that the Spirit recieves His being from the Son and is completely dependent on Him.
quote:
ply claiming over and over again that Maximus taught the Filioque isn’t proof that he did. I’ve already noted that Maximus in his Letter to Marius denies that “procession” can be said of the Spirit from the Son.
if by "procession" you mean "ekporeusis" (sp?), then this line of argument is a word dispute. I agree that ekporeusis--which implies sole first origin--cannot be used.
Maximus not only says that the Filioque is correct, he testifies that it is unanimously held by the Latin fathers, as well as St. Cyril of Alexandria. And likewise he says that the Rock on which the Church is built is the unfailing light of the Roman Church, as is stated also by other fathers, such as Jerome and Augustine and Sophronius.
He also says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/14/2010 8:29:32 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/14/2010 8:33:13 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
The question is whether Peter is so named for his confession, which is the truth of Christ's Messiahship or ”rock” upon which the church is built or whether Peter is thus given a non-apostolic and non-episcopal chrism that is passed on without ordination to some, but not all of his successors
that sounds like a rationistic and un-patristic "either/or" assumption, as well as a false statement of the issue.
pertinent to this: why was the Council of Antioch in 341 not Apostolic if it was in a city which had been governed by Peter, the Chief Apsotle, as the fathers called him, and was approved by more than one hundred bishops that had succeeded from the Apostles, and since it--the Council of Antioch in 341-- was approved by the Eastern laity for decades?
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/14/2010 12:26:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/14/2010 8:39:26 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
If the Fathers held that other interpretations were acceptable, then the Catholic interpretation is one of many and not necessarily de fide in their judgment. The point of Augustine is that he doesn’t represent the Catholic reading as of the deposit of faith. If it was, then Augustine didn’t know it. If Augustine knew the deposit of faith sufficiently well, then at the time the Catholic reading was not de fide. Either way, the material from Augustine can't help the Catholic claiims
so numerous fathers testify that the Church is built on Peter and on the Roman Church, and there is no such testimony against this. and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon likewise says the Church is buiilt on Peter. but yet you say this is not "de fide" since Augustine left the issue open in regard to whether the Chruch is built on Peter, as he had previously said? if that is a good argument, then I guess Nicaea and the early Councils may not have represented the earlier fathers, who also left things open (and spoke confusedly at times) in any case, they certainly were not the unanimous views of all the Bishops or the Church.
moreover, I learned that the two pro-Arian councils of Antioch and Sirmium were approved for 20 years by the people of the East. and there were numerous councils in Constantinople, approved by the Eastern patriarchs, which taught Monophysitism. meanwhile, Chalcedon was rejected by the majority of the people in Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria, etc.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/14/2010 9:14:28 AM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
