When and why did the Eastern Orthodox abandon the Nicene faith

>>3325002
1453 AD

File: orthodox-christian-timeline8003.png (123KB, 834x581px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 834x581px

Now that's a loaded question from someone who probably has `filioque` in his creed.

>>3325028
The Creed of Athanasius says that "The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

>>3325041
> The Creed of Athanasius
Which Ecumenical council accepted it tho? The Creed of Athanasius is a late Latin fanfic with no doctrinal authority whatsoever, you might as well start citing Luther to me.

>>3325068
It was originally written by Athanasius in Greek

>>3325075
1. No, it wasn't, it was clearly written in the West some 100-200 years after Athanasius.
2. There is no Greek original known to the Greek church, which you would expect.
3. Even if it was, it doesn't mean one person's opinion suddenly overrules Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.

>>3325002
More like the church which chamged its teaching on birth control and divorce and sacramental "remarriage".

>>3325090
>No, it wasn't, it was clearly written in the West some 100-200 years after Athanasius
Wrong
>There is no Greek original known to the Greek church
They stopped copying it after they repudiated it
>Even if it was, it doesn't mean one person's opinion suddenly overrules Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.
It represents the creed

File: Screenshot_2017-09-02-12-17-15.jpg (495KB, 1080x1653px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1080x1653px

>>3325132

>>3325141
>Wrong
This is not that scholarly consensus says.
>They stopped copying it after they repudiated it
No sources on that either, just pure speculation.
>It represents the creed
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed doesn't have filioque.

>>3325158
>The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed doesn't have filioque.
It also doesn't have the word "alone". Photius was a heretic.

>>3325207
>It also doesn't have the word "alone".
> therefore I can add whatever I want
What kind of logic is this? The Creed was confirmed by the Ecumenical councils, do you think you're smarter than they were? Do you think they forgot to put it there? And since there's no word "alone", why stop with the Christ? Why not put Mary as well (gee, I bet a lot of papists would like to), hell, why not put Peter because wouldn't it be great? After all, you're already pulling doctrines out of your ass, so why not.

>>3325259
All the early church fathers believed the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son

>>3325289
Yet somehow the Ecumenical councils failed to mention it in the creeds.

You see, whatever arguments you present, we have the proceeding, decrees, and creeds from the councils, and there's no filioque in there, meaning it's a latter innovation by the Western church. So the only viable argument for you is to reject the councils altogether, but then I have nothing to say to you.

>>3325317
>I interpret the councils better than the men who were there

>>3325336
What does this even mean? You don't "interpret" councils, you read the creeds, and there's no filioque in there. If the men who were there had thought it was a sound doctrine they would have put it in the creed. But they didn't. And afterward, the same men who were there went back to their churches and continued to teach the creed without the filioque: no one in the East had heard of it until Latins started to teach it hundreds of years later.

>>3325336
You're low IQ.

What difference does it make if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son or just one? And how would you possibly know that? Surely this is just theological posturing?

>>3325132
>divorce and sacramental "remarriage".
Nope.
This stuff is ancient.

Here is more info from an eastern catholic website.
https://east2west.org/faq/ecumenism/

File: Icon depicting the persecutors of the church.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>3325041
>>3325075
>Latins resorting to forged documents in order to back up their innovative theology.

Wow, so unexpected.

>>3325973
>forged documents
Even if it were not written by Athanasius (it is), it wouldn't be a forgery. It never claims to be Athanasian. What it certainly is is ancient

File: muh rock.png (335KB, 960x802px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 960x802px

>>3326036
>Latins forging documents AND moving goalposts.

lol

>>3325586
Answer this.

>>3327158
I'm not qualified to talk about the theological aspect, which I'm sure is present here as well, but the core of the conflict is the idea that you don't change or add doctrines just because you want to, something the West totally ignores. It's the same with priests' celibacy, the immaculate conception of the Virgin, and the Papal infallibility: all these are new doctrines with no precedent in the ancient church and the Councils. The East, on the other hand, is very reluctant to change its doctrinal teachings just because someone feels like it, without the authorization by an Ecumenical Council.
Another aspect is the West's tendency to use forgery and blatant lies to support its innovations, as you can see itt, something the East has no tolerance to.

>>3325356
>>3325336
>>3325446
On chans I found orthodox to be the most sound and knowledgeable, this is maybe anecdotal but I seen it again and again.

Catholics to Orthodox are what Protties to Catholics, obnoxious and undereducated.

>>3327525
>priests' celibacy
That was a western thing for a looooong time.
Besides, it's discipline, not dogma.

This is what someone from 13th-century Beijing had to say about the 'filioque' controversy:

>The Cardinals said unto him, “Doth the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father or from the Son, or is it separate?ö RABBAN SAWMA replied, “Are the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit associated in the things which appertain to the Nature (keyana) or separate?" The Cardinals answered, "They are associated in the things which concern the Nature (keyana) but are separate in respect of individual qualities." RABBAN SAWMA said, "What are their individual qualities?" The Cardinals replied, "Of the Father, the act of begetting: of the Son the being begotten: of the Spirit the going forth (proceeding). RABBAN SAWMA said, "Which of Them is the cause of that Other?" And the Cardinals replied, "The Father is the cause of the Son, and the Son is the cause of the Spirit." RABBAN SAWMA said, "If they are coequal in Nature (keyana), and in operation, and in power, and in authority (or dominion), and the Three Persons (kenome) are One, how is it possible for one of Them to be the cause of the Other? For of necessity (61) the Spirit also must be the cause of some other thing; but the discussion is extraneous to the Confession of faith of wise men. We cannot find a demonstration resembling this statement of yours.

>"For behold," [... Paragraph arguing begotten and proceeding are virtually the same]

>Then the Cardinals said unto him, "We confess that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father and the Son, but not as we said, for we were only putting thy modesty [or, religious belief?] to the test. "And RABBAN SAWMA said, "It is not right that to something which is one, two, three, or four causes should be [assigned]; on the contrary I do not think that this resembleth our Confession of Faith. "Now though the Cardinals restrained (62) his speech by means of very many demonstrations, they held him in high esteem because of his power of argument.

>>3327543
Really? Ive found they are horribly bias and one sided when it comes to church history while Catholics tend to let past conflicts pass.

The thing is, Catholics don't know much about Orthodox. We are taught they exist, we know about the church councils but we only know the basics of their organization and theology.

Alot of Orthodox in the west made a choice at some point to reject Catholicism so they tend to know a bit more about it.

That said, no religion is pure, unchanged for 2000 years. That is an absurdity. Its just change is harder in the Orthodox tradition because they dont accept Papal superiority, and they dont call councils as much.

--former Catholic