Rome used to be Orthodox. Their apostasy is due maimly to two

File: christians-praying-icon.jpg (37KB, 294x400px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 294x400px

>>9954483
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.

>dogmatical metaphysics

read Kant
pleb

>>9954488
>Kant rejects mysticism and revelation so you're a pleb if you don't too

Nope

>>9954586
pleb

>>9954594
You are simply too Enlightened for me, good sir

>>9954586

Kant doesn't reject revelation, he only rejects it as a basis of knowledge.

Constructing a massive metaphysical system of the true nature of reality based on nothing other than your fucking feels, and worse, then proceeding to politicize it, is almost impossibly arrogant.

>>9954483
>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.

Which is exactly why The Roman Church is vastly superior to the embarrassing wizardmen of the East.
Christ means absolutely nothing without accepting the filioque, Orthodoxy can barely be called Christianity at all.

>>9954619
Saying revelation is nothing but feels is rejecting it. Besides, Kant strangely sidesteps Hume's observation that knowledge is ingrained by sentiment and reasoning is efficacious only when it stirs the sentiment that something is true.

>>9954624
>Which is exactly why The Roman Church is vastly superior to the embarrassing wizardmen of the East.
From a wordly perspective, not from a spiritual one

>>9954641
Mysticism is not spiritualism, its merely an alternative form of materialism (and an objectively wrong one).
Slavshits know nothing of the Spirit

>>9954655
You do know that "mystery" is used extensively in the NT? Including in every verse where it reads "sacrament" in Latin

>>9954673
I think you'll find neither of those English words are in the original text, if you're going to argue semantics back it up with actual Greek

>>9954681
I'm Greek Orthodox, we translate mysterion as mystery. Are you going to quibble on this? And did you seriously category Isaac the Syrian and John Climacus as Slavs?

>>9954637
not that anon but are the comments made by Church Fathers revelation?

>>9954637
>Saying revelation is nothing but feels is rejecting it.

You're attacking a meme representation of what is actually said because you've probably never read Kant.

What he actually says is that revelation doesn't constitute knowledge but is possible in that it can be used for moral edification. Of course a dogmatist would immediately hear alarm bells since it avoids "BUT IS IT REEAAAAAAL DUDE BONG-GURGLE*

If you think revelation is knowledge then it's certainly a strange form of knowledge in that it can't be shared with anyone and everyone else simply has to take what you said on faith.
You're basically going "Well this is true because God told me it is but all of you just have to believe it."
Real knowledge is something that can be shared and in which everyone can participate.

>>9954483
>Pornocracy
I'm assuming this isn't what it sounds like

>>9954840
whoever has the biggest dick becomes the ruler when the sitting one dies

>>9954840
Wasn't that an era in the late medieval when the popes were all perverted as fuck? If i remember correctly one dudes ass was so gaped he smelled like shit at all times.

>>9954803
Sometimes. In the Orthodox Church, inspired teaching from the Fathers is canonized in the liturgy either by quote or mention

>>9954806
Sharing in revelation is a major part of Orthodoxy, that is part of the legacy of Pentecost. We literally have manuals on revelation. See the OP

>>9954857
Do the fathers themselves say things like God told me X or is it more later Orthodox/Catholics looking back and realising that God was working through them indirectly?

>>9954866
It varies, just like the Bible. Sometimes it's a vision (as described in Life of Saint Anthony), other times it is more subtle (as with a saint saying he wishes to share the fruits of what God taught him). Sometimes it says neither, but the Church finds it inspired