Posted on 05/22/2011 10:02:42 AM PDT by DaveMSmith
The filioque issue is not a doctrine but it is a doctrinal issue.
Now, no Orthodox priest in good standing with the Church will question the error of the filioque and be an Orthodox priest in good standing with his bishop. I didn't see his site and it really doesn't matter: as far as Orthodoxy is concerned, filioque is a canonical violation, which also happens to be doctrinally wrong: the Spirit, as regards his existence, does not originate "and from the Son".
But then again, aren't you suppose[d] to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching?
First of all the priest is a bishop's lieutenant and can act only on permission of his bishop to whom the priest owes absolute obedience. Catholic priest may, and I emphasize may, be different. An Orthodox priest may not even serve the liturgy unless she has a written permission to do so from his bishop.
As for the people of God, the "congregation", submitting to the Bishop, yes, only if he is orthodox. UNorthodox bishops are kicked out in Eastern churches. The tradition is guarded by the people and is in the hands of the people of God. If they see something new they will confront the clergy and demand an explanation, even physically attack them! Kolo has a good video of people stopping a bishop for changing the liturgical language from koine to modern Greek. If the people of God see innovation, they put their clergy in place. You are mixing up the Latin Church with Orthodoxy, HD.
?Our salvation is by grace alone, through faith in Jesus, and that faith comes from the Lord opening our minds to understand and receive the Word of God. Salvation is a gift of God.”
“Good works will follow living with the Spirit of Christ in you, but those works do not, never could, “earn” your salvation.”
“Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.””
Amen and if anyone preaches any other gospel, it is a false one.
See post #100.
Some things are worth repeating.
“Beware of FALSE prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are RAVENING wolves ... For such are FALSE apostles,
DECEITFUL workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”
Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:15, The Apostle Paul, II Corinthians 11:13
INDEED.
I reckon we need to get rid of all that, "extra biblical, double predestination" stuff in the first chapter of Ephesians.
I guess its OK if you don't mind sacrificing accuracy for speed.
Indulgences exist to this day and the Church long ago recognized and forbade some corrupt practices as the . You alleged that they were sold by the Church to shorten ones time in purgatory. That has never been Church doctrine. So what was your point?
It would seem that reports of your recent demise were exaggerated a bit, (Or something Mark Twainish like that).
Oh no, not at all. It's hardly ho hum. What we don't care about is what other people believe within their own church or ecclesial group. It's up to them. We know what the correct, canonical wording of the Creed is. If other people pray it differently, then their bishops are not and cannot be in communion with our bishops. What we believe is well known (it has been in this case since the 380s) and available to everyone for the asking. If people don't want it, what are we supposed to do, get mad?
Now, as for the comments of the priest you quoted, as I said, his comments on the filioque are pedestrian (not "predestrian")in the sense that they are common and everyday...not incorrect. What is incorrect, HD, is that the filioque is a "stumbling block" to a reunion of Rome with the rest of The Church. The filioque is simply and completely unacceptable as a change to the Creed or the theology of The Church as expressed in the Creed, absent an ecumenical council making the change. As Kosta and I have said on many occasions here, unless Rome believes the exact same things as we do, there will be no communion among our bishops and theirs. The Laous tou Theou won't allow it.
"But then again, aren't you suppose to submit yourself to the authority of the Church which means submitting yourself to this priest and his teaching? "
I am under no authority to "submit" myself to the teaching of any priest except when he, as the representative of the bishop, teaches the dogma or canonical discipline of The Church. Whether or not the filioque is a merely a "stumbling block" to reunion of the Church of Rome with the rest of The Church is not a matter of the dogma or canonical discipline of Orthodoxy. Let me give you a more concrete example. Suppose my metropolitan and my parish priest were to teach that Panagia was bodily assumed into heaven ( I happen to believe that) and then demanded upon penalty of anathema that I believe that. I could and likely would publicly refuse to comply...and I would be within my rights, indeed I would be fulfilling my duty to The Church because the bodily assumption of the Theotokos is not dogma but rather theologoumennon which I may believe or not as I choose. I cannot, however, be ordered to believe it and if a bishop or priest were to order me to believe it, the appropriate penalty for them is removal from their office.
HD, our ecclesiology, and the relationships among the hierarchy, clergy, monastics and the laity within it, is very, very different from what you are used to, among Latins or protestants, in the West.
Well, bookies say that there is a 4 in 1461 chance he'll get the Julian date correct.
Luke 18:18-19
"Why do you call me good?", Jesus answered.
"No one is good - except God alone. That is a completely false statement. The way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ ALONE.
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
You FOOLISH Galatians!
Who has bewitched you?
Then you'd best pay attention to what PAUL has written: right?
They DO???
Wow!
The things one learns on FR!
Call me OBAMA!
I've listened to hundreds of sermons from Protestant pastors, and somehow I've failed to hear what you just claimed.
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
I guess it became more important later in Paul's travels.
HMMmm...
That PAUL fellow can REALLY be confusing! 1 Corinthians 12:27
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one are a part of it.
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.