Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8
File: trinity_diagram.gif (36KB, 710x621px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 710x621px
Rome used to be Orthodox. Their apostasy is due maimly to two factors: the (forged) Donation of Constantine, and the Pornocracy
The Filioque is the Latin doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as principle (principle in Latin means the source or basis of something’s existence). That is the official Roman explanation of what “Filioque” means in the Creed. This is distinct from the Orthodox doctrine that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in the sense that the Son gives the Spirit to us, somewhat analogically to how the Spirit gave us the Son through the Son’s earthly conception. In Orthodoxy, the Father alone is the Spirit’s principle, whereas in Filioqueism, the Father-Son is the principle of the Spirit, whereas the Father alone is the principle of the Father and the Son. The Latin perspective lead to an obviation of the significance of the New Testament Pentecost. For example, Christ promised the Spirit of Truth would given to the Church to guide and administrate her; Catholics blurred the Spirit’s coming with the principle of the Spirit’s existence, which greatly marginalized the former. This meant Catholics no longer saw the Spirit of Truth as strongly as an administrator and preserver of truth given to the Church, which is why they needed the Pope, who took over the role of the Spirit of Truth. Also, Latin mysticism was massively impaired by this: you see, in the Old Testament, only prophets had access to the Holy Spirit, so only they had mystical experiences. With the New Testament Pentecost, such direct and mystical experience of God is offered to everyone. Prior to the schism,
Cont
>>
File: christians-praying-icon.jpg (37KB, 294x400px) Image search:
[Google]
37KB, 294x400px
>>3313471
the writings of Saint Isaac the Syrian and Saint John of the Ladder (who both wrote about how to have mystical experiences with God) were both highly esteemed and read in the West. After the schism, their relevance was gradually reduced; today, they are still considered very important in the Orthodox Church, but for the Romans they are little more than academic curiosities.
Cont
>>
File: c1e83af39df5677a8c47117f2e20b5e1.jpg (322KB, 607x900px) Image search:
[Google]
322KB, 607x900px
>>3313475
Rome initially rejected the Filioque. Pope Leo III was the first Pope was faced with its addition (prior to him, some churches in the West used it, but it had not reached Rome). Carolingian envoys were sent to him to ask he add it to the Creed (as transcript of this exchanged can be found in “Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy”). Pope Leo at first told them no, he would not officially add it in writing, but if they wished they might say it in the service, but no writing would be changed. They continued to pressure and pester him, and he finally told them not only would he not add it, but that now he was forbidding them from singing it, and said he had no authority to unilaterally alter the Nicene Creed, stating, “I will not say I prefer myself to the Fathers. And far be it from me to count myself their equal." To emphasize the finality of his decision, he had the Creed without the Filioque engraved on two silver tablets. A few decades later, his decision would be upheld in the Council of 879, which anathematized the Filioque and Pope Nicholas I for espousing Papal supremacy; this council was affirmed by Pope John VIII, which ended the Photian Schism. However, in 1014, after pressure from Henry II of Germany, Pope Benedict VIII added the Filioque. Benedict owed Henry big time because the later restored him to his see after the antipope took it. And that is how it got in the Latin Creed today.
There is a popular quote used by Catholics ascribed to Kallistos Ware: "The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences." This quote is fabricated, and the work by Ware it is ascribed to, does not exist.
>>
Hi Constantine. It's been a while. How's the horse BF?
>>
File: TRUTH NOW.jpg (177KB, 877x558px) Image search:
[Google]
177KB, 877x558px
>>
>>3313471
Mohammad did the same thing by referring to himself as the one Jesus was going to send soon.
>>
>>3313471
You know the Holy Spirit is a person, right?
A person you can lie to, who is grieved, etc.?
>>
>>3313471
Matthew 28:19 teaches us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is a collective reference to one Triune God. Also, we are not to grieve the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30). The Spirit can be sinned against (Isaiah 63:10) and lied to (Acts 5:3). We are to obey Him (Acts 10:19–21) and honor Him (Psalm 51:11).
The personhood of the Holy Spirit is also affirmed by His many works. He was personally involved in creation (Genesis 1:2), empowers God’s people (Zechariah 4:6), guides (Romans 8:14), comforts (John 14:26), convicts (John 16:8), teaches (John 16:13), restrains sin (Isaiah 59:19), and gives commands (Acts 8:29). Each of these works requires the involvement of a person rather than a mere force, thing, or idea.
The Holy Spirit’s attributes also point to His personality. The Holy Spirit has life (Romans 8:2), has a will (1 Corinthians 12:11), is omniscient (1 Corinthians 2:10–11), is eternal (Hebrews 9:14), and is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7). A mere force could not possess all of these attributes, but the Holy Spirit does.
And the personhood of the Holy Spirit is affirmed by His role as the third Person of the Godhead. Only a being who is equal to God (Matthew 28:19) and possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and eternality could be defined as God.
>>
>>3313471
John 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
>>
>>3313772
Yep, Holy Tradition says the Spirit is a person
>>
>>3313792
I don't give a fig about either side's tradition, as neither is holy.
Whatever schism you people had over this obscure belief is over. I hope you know that.
You two, RCC and EO, are just the two iron legs of Nebuchadnezzar's statue; you're just Rome. Rome for a thousand years, and then Constantinople for a thousand years.
You're the same pagans.
>>
>>3313802
Nope, it's you and Rome who are two sides of the same coin, you just replaced the Pope with the Bible but neither of you is guided by the Spirit of Truth
>>
>>3313471
The procession of the spirit from father and the son or through the son was a theological belief which was held by some church theologians and fathers which influenced the creed with its addition first in the Mozarabic Spanish church in the 600s. Then it spread to the Frankish and eventually the entire Latin church. The schism was caused first by patriarch photius of Constantinople who went into conflict with Rome over jurisdiction over the Latin church of the vlachs(Romanians) being merged with the Slavonic church of newly converted Bulgaria. After constantinoples reconciliation an anti latin faction within the Byzantine church led to Michael cerualrius in in 11th century destroying latin churches which gained him excommunication from the church. He continued to "exommunicate" the pope of Rome against the wishes of patriarch peter iii of Antioch. Several churchmen in the Balkan and Russian churches came to the support of the schism against the Latins. The Filioque in the creed wasn't the main issue behind the schism
>>
>>3313814
>replace man with gods word
what is the problem?
>>
File: 1503939891955.png (4KB, 211x239px) Image search:
[Google]
4KB, 211x239px
This retarded shit again
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 8
Thread images: 8