Heretics?

[ebia]

I am glad you accept the Nicene Creed (though I doubt you accept it the way it was intended and the way I accept it - talking mainly about the communion of saints here which was placed in the creed purposefully to include the saints in heaven and earth supporting the idea of prayer to saints).

Who? me?  I've no problem with praying to the saints.  I'm a bit confused about what that's got to do with the Nicene Creed though - you're not thinking of the Apostles Creed are you?

Also I happen to have done a lot of study on the fililoque and would be willing to bet you don't even know what it is in the definition that is the source of the real controversy.  The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is not the issue, it is more complex than that.  The Holy Spirit obviously proceeds from the Son here on earth as He gave it to the Apostles in John 20:22.  There are other examples but that should suffice.  

The real disagreement between the Orthodox and Catholic Church on this issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds "eternally" from the Son as it does from the Father.   Most Orthodox Priests don't even know this.

I did understand that much.  I don't claim to have the theological background to begin to answer the question, but what I said above was just supposed to be a very brief summary, not the full positon of the differing churches.


 

There is no scripture to support the position of "eternally" proceeding from the Son or not "eternally" proceeding from the Son.    The entire argument is based on Tradition, something both Orthodox and Catholics accept but Protestants do not.

Some protestants do not.

So I am not sure how you made you decision to not accept it as the only source you rely on scripture supports (as far as it is discussed) the idea that the spirit does proceed from the Son.

1.  You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions about what I believe - have you confused me with someone else?
2.  I never suggested I did reject the fililoque, just that the Creed was better off without it - an attitude that some leaders within the RCC seem to be sympatising with lately - in the interests of "whole church unity".   Leaving it out of the creed doesn't have to mean an acceptance of the Orthodox position.  Quite frankly, I don't pretend to be able to understand most of the arguments each way, although, within what I do understand I will admit to finding the Orthodox position the stronger.  (Based on a bit of reading up on it, and debates on other boards where Orthodox and Catholics can debate without the kinds of attack seen in some quarters).

[michael_legna]

I am glad you accept the Nicene Creed (though I doubt you accept it the way it was intended and the way I accept it - talking mainly about the communion of saints here which was placed in the creed purposefully to include the saints in heaven and earth supporting the idea of prayer to saints).

Who? me?  I've no problem with praying to the saints.  I'm a bit confused about what that's got to do with the Nicene Creed though - you're not thinking of the Apostles Creed are you?

Also I happen to have done a lot of study on the fililoque and would be willing to bet you don't even know what it is in the definition that is the source of the real controversy.  The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son is not the issue, it is more complex than that.  The Holy Spirit obviously proceeds from the Son here on earth as He gave it to the Apostles in John 20:22.  There are other examples but that should suffice.  

The real disagreement between the Orthodox and Catholic Church on this issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds "eternally" from the Son as it does from the Father.   Most Orthodox Priests don't even know this.

I did understand that much.  I don't claim to have the theological background to begin to answer the question, but what I said above was just supposed to be a very brief summary, not the full positon of the differing churches.


 

There is no scripture to support the position of "eternally" proceeding from the Son or not "eternally" proceeding from the Son.    The entire argument is based on Tradition, something both Orthodox and Catholics accept but Protestants do not.

Some protestants do not.

So I am not sure how you made you decision to not accept it as the only source you rely on scripture supports (as far as it is discussed) the idea that the spirit does proceed from the Son.

1.  You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions about what I believe - have you confused me with someone else?
2.  I never suggested I did reject the fililoque, just that the Creed was better off without it - an attitude that some leaders within the RCC seem to be sympatising with lately - in the interests of "whole church unity".   Leaving it out of the creed doesn't have to mean an acceptance of the Orthodox position.  Quite frankly, I don't pretend to be able to understand most of the arguments each way, although, within what I do understand I will admit to finding the Orthodox position the stronger.  (Based on a bit of reading up on it, and debates on other boards where Orthodox and Catholics can debate without the kinds of attack seen in some quarters).

I am sorry I did have you confused with someone else.  It appears we agree on alot of issues.  Once again I am sorry I did not mean to make differences where none existed.

I too do not claim to know enough theology to answer the issue of "eternally" proceeding.  I doubt the vast majority of Christians do, my point was that most accept one doctrine or the other based on the authority of either the Catholic or orthodox Churches.  I don't know how a Bible only Chrisitan addresses this issue.  But I suspect we agree on this too.

[ebia]

Most Orthodox Priests don't even know this.

I'm kind of intregued by this.  What (in your experience) do most Orthodox priests think the argument is about then?

[ebia]

I am sorry I did have you confused with someone else.  It appears we agree on alot of issues.  Once again I am sorry I did not mean to make differences where none existed.

No worries.

[michael_legna]

Most Orthodox Priests don't even know this.

I'm kind of intregued by this.  What (in your experience) do most Orthodox priests think the argument is about then?

The ones I have spoken with about it believe that this is about any proceedings of the Holy Spirit from the Son.  They almost exclusively claim that the times mentioned in scripture, when Christ gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, prior to Pentecost, that it was only "a taste" of the Holy Spirit, whatever that means, and I asked believe me, but I never got a good answer.

[ebia]

Ok. Wierd, but I'll take your word for it.  

[sincereheart]

Yes, formal heretics are those who know the truth that the Church presents and through their own obstinancy refuse to accept it.  They are indeed at risk of not being saved.  I don't know of anyone who fits that category.  Most either don't accept the truth because they do not understand it or don't accept it.  Though I suppose it could happen that someone accept the truth of the Catholic Churches position and still refused to become a member, but that seems hypocritical or insane.

Could you elaborate on this?   Maybe speak s l o w l y and use small words?   What would constitute the 'truth that the Church presents'? The 'Church' part is confusing me. Are we referring to 'the Body' or the the Catholic Church? And does the 'truth' include church memebrship in the Body or the RCC?  


I suspect even most Protestant fall under the category of material heretics, those who simply have honestly not been convinced of the Churches position.  These heretics are not automatically considered to be at risk of damnation.

Same as above (re: 'Church')... And - which 'heretics' ARE considered to be at risk?

If you were to obstinantly resist the charming, intelligent, convincing arguments of someone teaching the Catholic position (like me   ), even if you knew in your heart he was right then you would move into the category of formal heretic.

LOL! That one caught me off-guard!   But according to the RCC what if you didn't 'know' in your heart that 'he' was right? Back to material heretic?  

At least this is the way I understand it.  I hope this clears up the confusion.

  You are kidding, right?  

[ebia]

As far as the RCC is concerned, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ.

[sincereheart]

The Nicene Creed is a good rule to follow. Normally group that don’t believe it are said to be heretical.
Other than that, I agree that the Nicene Creed (without fililoque), as the only truly whole church creed, is a pretty good standard.

From it:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

So does 'the Body of Christ' have to be Catholic?  

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems..."

Is this accurate?  

[ebia]

The Nicene Creed is a good rule to follow. Normally group that don’t believe it are said to be heretical.
Other than that, I agree that the Nicene Creed (without fililoque), as the only truly whole church creed, is a pretty good standard.

From it:

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

So does 'the Body of Christ' have to be Catholic?  

catholic just means universal, for everyone.  What actually consititues the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church is up for grabs.

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems..."

Is this accurate?  

Saying God has a plan for them isn't the same as saying they are right.  The Pope is saying that they worship the same God as us, even if they have some of their facts wrrong, and God has a plan for all who acknowledge Him.

[sincereheart]

As far as the RCC is concerned, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ.

But not all Catholics think the catholic church is the Catholic Church?  

[ebia]

As far as the RCC is concerned, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ.

But not all Catholics think the catholic church is the Catholic Church?  

Sorry - don't understand the question  

[Reba]

 The Catholic Encyclopedia on line makes for some very interesting reading. I have also read some of vaticanII.

 I have spent a while trying to spell 'liture' and as you can see i have failed   i tried internet and a real dictionary!  So does anyone have any other writings i may like to read?

[ebia]

I have spent a while trying to spell 'liture' and as you can see i have failed   i tried internet and a real dictionary!  

literature?

[Reba]