Posted on 05/22/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by DaveMSmith
I'm just quoting the Greek Orthodox's website.
Actually, you did not. The quote you pasted is not from the link you posted. May we have the source for the quote you pasted?
The article, written by a parish priest in Tasmania, a man more noted for the troubles in his parish than his theological acumen, says nothing about what we “consider” an “earlier version” of the Creed, Harley. There is no “earlier” or “later” “version” of the Creed...just the Creed.
BTW, despite what the village priest says in the article, the filioque is not a stumbling block to unity with the Latins and hasn’t been for many years. The Pope’s public, liturgical recitation of the Creed without the Spanish/Frankish filioque addition is proof enough of that. There are all sorts of stumbling blocks to Rome’s reunion with the other Churches, mostly ecclesiological but there are some serious theological ones too, but the filioque isn’t one of them. You always want to check the bona fides of your sources, HD.
How do you know that? That's the version chosen by the Catholic Church, which you reject as having no authority.
When have the Orthodox accepted the filique of the Nicene Creed?
Why should they accept an innovation when the Creed was written without the filioque, and specifically forbidding any changes in it?!? The filioque itself was inserted uncanonically 200 years later without any authority to do so, by a local church in Spain, and was steadfastly rejected by the popes for the next 500 years, all the way until the 11th century.
When have the Orthodox accepted Mary as Co-Redepdix?
They don't believe she is a redeemer of any kind by virtue of her essence or nature, but by the virtue of her giving birth to the Redeemer of the world, and that her prayers, more than ours, have a special resonance with God. I'd say that belief has been around for a long time, probably ever since they have the hymn "Most Holy Theotokos, save us." And the Orthodox don't change much their 1,700 year old liturgical hymns.
[How many corrupt, homosexual, Jim Joneses, money manipulating, prostitute chasing, end of the world nuts do you have in the Protestant community to pretend to have the moral high ground form which to throw mud at others?] Um...not many. Most of them end up joining the Catholic Church.
You don't read much, do you?
I've been to the Holy Lands and seen how the Jews cringe whenever they past Orthodox and Catholic churches. You see, they seem to think there is a lot of idolatry in them. So while the Orthodox and Catholics may wish to go to great gyrations and SAY they are not REALLY bowing down to idols, that is not how others perceive it.
I got news for you: the Jews reject anyone who believes that man can be God! To them such a believer is an idolatrist. The Jews reject Protestant Christians with equal dsigust (just visit the anti-missionary sites) as they do all other Christians, including—and especially— the so-called "Jews for Jesus" messianic variety.
Whether they bow to idols or simply pray to the one the Jews see as man-god (and, as they say, a legend at that!), makes very little difference.
[Protestants are a lot more liberal and all-inclusive then Catholics or especially the Orthodox. Protestant "churches" have openly homosexual "married" men and openly lesbian and "married" women as "bishops", or "ordained" ministers] I don't know if I agree with this statement. I think this can be said for all churches. To their credit the Orthodox seem to draw the line.
Well, draw up a list of Protestant assemblies with female and homosexual clergy and compare to Catholic or Orthodox Churches. Like I said, you don't seem to read much, HD.
You are a man of faith AND reason.
The other guys? Not so much.
"Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." -- 1 John 4:10
I suggest that you read the WHOLE website before you make such accusations. You will find this quote in the last paragraph. Here is the website once again Greek Orthodox view on the Nicene Creed.
BTW-If you don't wish to believe this website just Goggle it. There are plenty of other websites. I find the Orthodox to be far more forthright in their beliefs then Roman Catholics.
Seeing how the fathers like Jerome and Augustine did not consider the writings of Ignatius of Antioch to be inspired writings, does it really matter? If you believe Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the SMyrnaens why don't you believe Augustine's Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints?Catholics pick and choose which writings they want to believe and emphasize while ignoring or distorting other writings. I'm not very impress anymore when Catholics quote the fathers to me. It only means that they're ignoring what the scripture teaches.
There, fixed it for you.
That's like asking how do I know what Mark Twain or William Shakespears says? It's not hard to read the text and know what something says.
Do you defer to an expert, a pastor, someone more studied than you or do you reply only on your gut feelings?
I guess some go on their "gut" feelings.
Which Bible, Which interpretation? Since you claim to be infallible and inerrant perhaps you can direct me to the right one.
So are you saying that all people who read Scripture should reach the same conclusion and that agree with you are inerrant?
Absent any infallible authority every interpretation of Scripture is as valid as the next. By your own standard you cannot claim that any denomination, personal interpretation, or Catechism is wrong, including that of the Church.
So tell me, are you infallible? Are you infallibly certain that your interpretation of the whole Bible right and that you inerrantly understand it? Is Billy Graham, Charles Taze Russell, David Koresh, John Smyth, or Jean Calvin? Where you differ who is right and who is wrong?
We all agree that Scripture is inerrant, but what is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter? Are you that interpreter or are you only able to discern what is wrong, not what is right?
Exd 20:4-7 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Catholic Douay Rehims Version:
EX 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.
I give my sources unlike many Catholics who just recite one father or another to suit their interest. What is really foolishness is for Catholics to think they know the Church views and yet never have spent any time reading the Catholic encyclopedia New Advent.
There are numerous calls for alms giving in Scripture.
That wasn't the issue. The issue was paying for someone to get out of purgatory. How many scripture verses says that?
Again, as I posted earlier, there have only been two instances of a Pope speaking infallibly.
Does this include the Pope who declared that what he was saying was infallible? That means there was only one other Pope left who spoke infallibly. I hope that was Peter.
Hey, Alex! Here is another opportunity for you to prance and gloat over the zotting of Bronx2. Harley screwed up and pinged him.
I'm not aware of who Bronx2 is. He was in your post and as a courtesy I ping everyone in the post. So if I "screwed" up it was only because I was mimicking you.
You and I both know that this is NOT true. We have talked about the filique extensively. In fact, I even agree with the Orthodox position on the filique. Perhaps from the Orthodox's position there is only one Nicene Creed but it is certainly NOT the version accepted, believed, and recited in the Catholic Church. You may wish to ignore the later version of the Nicene Creed, but this article written by a parish priest is not incorrect.
Having "authority" over what? My doctrine? Last time I looked the Orthodox don't follow everything the Catholic Church states. Perhaps you meant authority of the Pope? Seems to me the Orthodox don't accept the Pope as the final authority either.
Well, draw up a list of Protestant assemblies with female and homosexual clergy and compare to Catholic or Orthodox Churches. Like I said, you don't seem to read much, HD.
Yes, yes. That does seem to be the talking points tonight.
I'd suggest you take a poll to find out how many people here believe that the scriptures as documented today is the ACTUAL inerrant word of God. You'd probably be surprise.
Harley, the fact that some Latins to this day believe that the prayer they recite with the filioque is indeed the Nicene Creed is neither here nor there to us. All that belief demonstrates is how much work in catechesis needs to be done over on the banks of the Tiber and beyond. The article you quoted advances the notion that the filioque is a major stumbling block to the reunion of the Latin Church with the rest of The Church. That is simply and completely wrong, at least from an Orthodox pov and it's been a very long time since I've seen a Latin ready to go to the mattresses over the notion that the filioque was in the Creed established by the Ecumenical Councils. The rest of his article is pedestrian at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.