Friday, January 20, 2012

THE NEW AGE HIDDEN DANGERS OF NEWT GINGRICH

THE FOLLOWING IS A REPRINT OF AN EARLIER ARTICLE I WROTE HERE AND FOR NEWSWITHVIEWS.COM.  I PRAY THAT OUR SOUTH CAROLINA READERS WILL  SOBERLY CONSIDER IT.
Constance

NEWT GINGRICH, THE NEW AGE, GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE


By Attorney Constance Cumbey
May 13, 2011NewsWithViews.com


Newt Gingrich has just announced he plans to run for President in 2012. And a whole bunch of undiscerning “Conservatives” and “Christians” might just well back him. The entire affair will be to the utter delight of New Age strategists and global planners who well consider Newt Gingrich an indispensable part of their apparatus.
Recently resigned State Department official Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter believes that the “New World Order” of which she is an unashamed proponent is already well in place. It is a network of networks, per Slaughter. It is composed of equivalent globalized governmental layers from all levels of government from the executive to the legislative and judiciary and down through various levels of bureaucracies including regulatory commissions sharing information and planning “model legislation” together. All levels also interact with “Non-governmental organizations” (NGO’s). Business is tied together by “The UN Global Compact.” Perhaps nobly, more aptly scarily is this obviously global fascistic goal as stated by former UN General Kofi Annan, of “shared values and principles, which give a human face to the global market.” (emphasis added). All corporate participants are expected to pledge allegiance to the principles of “diversity” and “fighting climate change” (defined at least at present as “global warming.)
Query: What “shared values”? What “shared principles”? Also, the “banking crisis” artificially generated or otherwise, has led to calls for “a new financial architecture for the 21st Century. (Slaughter, A NEW WORLD ORDER, p. 20).
Now, just how does NEWT GINGRICH, fit into the increasing momentum of the global governance agenda? He was, bluntly, an “early adopter.” In 1996 before he left Congress in scandal, he was putting together incredibly linked global governance networks. According to Anne-Marie Slaughter’s 2004 Princeton University Press book, A NEW WORLD ORDER:
“When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, he was convinced that parliamentary networks would give domestic legislators a new role in foreign policy. In 1996 he sent a letter to his Russian counterpart, Gennadyy Seleznyov, to create a forum made up of members of U.S. and Russian legislatures to discuss issues of defense, foreign policy, energy, and the environment on a regular basis. The result was the U.S. Congress-Russian Duma Study Group.”
Newt Gingrich did this at the “legislative level.” His very good friend and New Age buddy, Al Gore, did likewise at the executive level. According to Anne-Slaughter, “The [Gore’s]commission created a special channel to advance not only common political objectives but also to enhance each politician’s political position at home.” (emphasis added) (Slaughter, A NEW WORLD ORDER, p. 114)
Wading deeper and deeper into global government (ooops, governance) territories, Newt Gingrich created “the Twenty-First Century International Legislators Network.” This, per Slaughter, he “launched in 1996.” It was “sponsored” by the U.S. Congressional Institute. This was to be “a global web of legislators.”
If Gingrich were talking, which he undoubtedly non-stop is, he would probably say it was “to strengthen democracy around the world.” Knowing the New Age agenda as I do, I would say that was neither probable nor possible. Considering that one of Newt Gingrich’s more recent books is entitled A CONTRACT WITH THE EARTH, Earth Charter ramifications are abundantly clear.
I opened my personal file on Newt Gingrich in 1982 after reading articles about him in Marilyn Ferguson’s LEADING EDGE BULLETIN. She wrote of the brave Georgian Congressman, Newt Gingrich, who was working so hard to advance the New Age agenda. I continued to follow his exploits through his insensitive serving of divorce papers on his first wife Jackie as she was recovering from cancer surgery; his remarriage to his aide Marianne; his affair while married to Marianne to the woman now his wife. In 1989, I was contacted by one of his former aides and campaign managers, a man known as “Chip.” This was the same close observer and former aide quoted in the press as saying that no matter how much good he did for the world, he could never do enough good to offset the evil he had caused by supporting Newt Gingrich’s original election campaign. The “Christian” Gingrich wrote Chip that his daily practice of Taoism helped him make his daily decisions in Congress.
Others have noted what they, undoubtedly not knowing Gingrich’s past history, of Mark Satin’s embrace of him:
"[Newt] Gingrich's influence in the third way movement [has] brought on kudos from the likes of New Age 'philosopher' Mark Satin [who has] identified Gingrich as a top 'decentralist / globally responsible' [thinker]. An interesting paradox, that fits the odd decentralism of the Third Way. . . . Beyond that, Mr. Satin . . . is not the kind of man you expect to be praising [Gingrich]." -- Steve Farrell & Diane Alden, "Third Way Contract," Independent American Party [website], c. January 2005”

Newt Gingrich wrote in many of his official bio’s for conservative causes that he taught history.  In actuality, it was in the New Age full employment program of “Environmental Studies.” In the mid 1980s, Mark Satin, author of NEW AGE POLITICS and NEW OPTIONS newsletter gave “Internationalist” rankings for Congressmen. Heading the list with the best “internationalist” voting records in Congress were Newt Gingrich and Marcy Kaptur, a Congresswoman from Toledo, Ohio.

An interesting analysis of Newt Gingrich appeared in a 1986 edition of the Los Angeles Times. It noted how he was most likely a left leaner, but learned that the right got the votes. Ergo, he suddenly veered course to the right. That analysis troubles me more than the Alvin Toffler, Heidi Toffler, Environmental Studies analyses which are a red flag of New Age danger in and of themselves.. It suggests a man who is more amoral than immoral. Such a person to my way of thinking is most dangerous of all – he does nothing from conviction or reason, but does all from a analysis of personal advantage.
Another astute Gingrich observer was writer Steve Farrell. You can read his 2001 analysis by clicking the link here. Excerpting in part, we read:
On November 11, 1994, still bubbling and cocksure over the Republican takeover of both Houses, his coming coronation as Speaker of the House, and his annointing as King of the Republican Revolution, Gingrich couldn't resist exploiting the moment to put in a free plug for something he so devoutly believed in. . . . "The core of our Contract," and the solution for those "trying to figure out how to put me in a box," he said, could be found in a book by futurist Alvin Toffler called "The Third Way;" to which he added: "I am a conservative futurist ." (1)  . . . 
Futurism, as already alluded to, is one and the same with the Third Way or Third Wave, but for brevity sake, Webster's Dictionary gives us another take on this subject.   . . . 

"Futurism: Study of, and interest in, forecasting or anticipating the future, or theorizing on how to impose controls on events." (2)


Or in other words, a head in the clouds political philosophy, complete with theories and forecasts, which envisions the use of force to insure those theories and forecasts come to past.


It would not be a stretch to call it communism with economic vision, for that is what the futurists of the Third Way call it. But, what then, is a conservative futurist? If we believe Newt Gingrich, it is in person, a post 1994 Republican. And it is in policy, the Contract With America, the go along, get along policies of a party who for the next six year "caved" under Clinton, and the faith-based subsidies, public private partnership, fast track hopes, and bipartisan spirit of today’s Compassionate Conservativism movement - the latter of which had its start in the legislation and underlying principles of that same Gingrich Contract...”

Perhaps Newt Gingrich is not a New Ager, but saw political advantage at the time as portraying himself in certain circles as one. As dangerous as an ideologue of any strip potentially is, I would prefer one to a self-centered narcissist. Perhaps an ideologue could be converted. A narcissist could only be reinforced. While we are all sinners in need of saving by Grace, I fear we have somebody in public life who lacks both conviction and shame.

May the Lord help us all!Germany once put somebody in office that bragged that if one repeated a lie often enough and loud enough, people would believe it. Too many people do. I fear that the USA may well be on the verge of doing the same vis a vis Newt Gingrich. As far as the Christians not seeing through Newt Gingrich, this is what I have to say to them. “If you couldn’t see through Rev. Moon (“Lord of the Second Advent) and you couldn’t see through Paul N. Temple (Institute of Noetic Sciences co-founder active with the Prayer Breakfast Network of Douglas Coe), then I can hardly expect you to see through Newt Gingrich!



© 2011 - Constance Cumbey - All Rights Reserved
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Constance Cumbey is an active Michigan lawyer. Constance practices her profession primarily in, Southeastern Michigan, USA. Sometimes she also works in what she calls her "old stomping grounds" of Michigan's State Capital, Lansing, Michigan where she practices administrative, state law related matters. She's enjoyed active and stimulating careers in government, politics, law and as a published and translated author. In the past she served as a national officer of the National Association of Women Lawyers and chaired the Family Law subcommittee of the General Practice Section of the American Bar Association.
Before beginning her legal career, she worked as a legislative analyst for the Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, and while in law school as a consultant to the Appropriations Committee of the Michigan State Senate. She also served as the first charter position Executive Assistant to the May or of the Detroit enclave City of Highland Park, Michigan. Seven years into her legal career, she went on to become the author of the first major critical book about the New Age Movement, THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW: The New Age Movement and our Coming Age of Barbarism (1983); A PLANNED DECEPTION: The Staging of a New Age Messiah (1986). Currently, she's completing a volume about Javier Solana, the Barcelona Process, Israel and the European Union.
E-mail: cumbey@gmail.com
Blog Spot: www.cumbey.blogspot.com
248-253-0333


Home

Comments: 1 – 200 of 239 Newer› Newest»
Rick Santorum just had an interesting interview with Piers Morgan on CNN. I'm deeply distressed that any Evangelical with a grain of concern about the New Age issues could ever concern supporting Newt Gingrich, an ardent long term New Age activist. Gingrich and Al Gore are ideological clones, both mentored by New Age social engineers Alvin and Heidi Toffler.

Newt Gingrich worked with Barbara Marx Hubbard to co-found the Congressional Clearinghouse for the Future.

Constance
 
"John King and Newt Gingrich's unrighteous anger":

Newt has a lot to answer for. He is trying to be just like Barack Obama. No one is allowed to vet him. Vetting Gingrich is considered an anti-Republican smear campaign. His vetting the others is just good politics. Newt is a grandiose hypocrite. 
Newt was dead wrong in his response to John King and he was dead wrong today in his response to Mitt Romney. Newt’s sense of entitlement to the presidency has him veering into the realm of fantasy. 
Newt’s responses to questions of honesty, integrity, and character are signs he is not fit to lead the nation.  He really believes he is entitled to evade his past because it is his past.


http://tinyurl.com/7do4z4e
 
News (checking Google news search) is getting cockier and sicker by the moment vis a vis one of the most morally brazen candidates we have ever seen:

News for "Newt Gingrich"

Washington Times
Newt Gingrich Giddy On Eve Of South Carolina Vote

Huffington Post‎ - 5 hours ago
CHARLESTON, SC -- Newt Gingrich arrived 45 minutes late to his third event of the day Friday, as the political world buzzed with the growing realization ...
10362 related articlesVideo: Gingrich blasts marriage question in debate
CBS News
For Gingrich, Wives Always at Center of Career
New York Times‎ - 2295 related articles

 
A truly excellent, informative column on Gingrich.

More on Gingrich.
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/01/30/gingrich-toffler-and-gore-a-peculiar-trio-steve-farrell/

http://tinyurl.com/245cyes

Here is another
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0122-20120122,0,941553.column

http://tinyurl.com/78n8oom

I do hope that conservatives are not taken in by Gingrich as liberals were taken in by Obama.
 
Kudos to Cumbey for the critical questions no one asks of this stuff.
" Query: What “shared values”? What “shared principles”? "

let's get specific. I am not sure there are ANY actually shared values or principles throughout the world, that don't have caveats and provisos per locality, ethnic interest, or misinterpretation of The Bible. Not to mention dragging in the false religions. The only shared value I can think of is survival and even this has a caveat, since it would preclude religious proselytism and conversion in many places. And the anti genocide treaty as I recall, goes way beyond physical destruction direct or indirect of a physically distinct or identifiable or self identified still PHYSICAL only type group, to refer to many other issues incl. religious.
 
At the same time, why are we at all surprised that the New World Order and the New Age Movement would want to make sure that their 'bases are covered' so that it will be a win win situation for them in November, 2012 - no matter who the candidate is in both political parties?

We, the American people, are the 'losers' here!
 
Connecting more dots...Rick Perry was the Texas State Chairman for Al Gore's presidential campaign back in 1988.

(They are all 'in bed' together.)
 
I meant to include this link:

http://www.enviroknow.com/
2011/06/23/rick-perry-al-gore-1988/


*Note: Rick Perry switched parties and become a Republican in 1989.
 
New York Times article (01/20/12):

Scientists to Pause Research on Deadly Strain of Bird Flu

The scientists who altered a deadly flu virus to make it more contagious have agreed to suspend their research for 60 days to give other international experts time to discuss the work and determine how it can proceed without putting the world at risk of a potentially catastrophic pandemic.

http://tinyurl.com/7ed3p8e
 
1.4 Million gang members and more pour into the U.S. every single day!!!

http://tinyurl.com/8xg6oak
 
It is interesting that Rick Perry also has endorsed Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry has claimed to be an evangelical Christian.
 
There's just a lot of hysteria being spread by the media, that Santorum is an extremist who is going to come after your contraception after midnight. So the votes are going to those perceived to be more moderate.
 
To John Rupp, Jr. @ 7:31 PM:

Some 'Christian'....Rick Perry has ties to the Dominionist Movement.

http://tinyurl.com/3cqrteu
 
Evangelical Voters: Newt May Be an Adulterer, but He's OUR Adulterer!
Posted by Bill Anderson on January 21, 2012 06:28 PM

As the returns from South Carolina come in, we find that about two-thirds of SC Republican voters are evangelicals, and the evangelicals have spoken loudly: If Democrats are adulterers, they are evil, but if it is a Republican, well, all is forgiven. I'm sure that the Bob Jones University crowd gave serial adulterer Newt its thumbs up. Hey, at least Bill and Hillary Clinton are still together.

During the Clinton years, we heard from evangelicals ad nauseum that character mattered. Well, here is Newt Gingrich, a man who was banging his campaign workers, demanding an "open marriage," and had the moral compass of a shark. This is the man evangelicals support? And then evangelicals wonder why people on the left see them as hypocrites and moral cowards.

So, the people who claim to follow Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, display their beliefs through candidates like Newt Gingrich. These are the people who jeered Ron Paul when he called for Americans to live by the Golden Rule that Christ Himself taught us. It is beyond me, and I have been part of the evangelical subculture for all of my life.
 
Constance, I "voted" for Rick Santorum even before his excellent performance at the CNN debate Thursday, by sending him a donation, a big enough one to get the "sweater vest" even though I may not wear it. My rational mind told me I should not "waste" money on a politician, since they are all imperfect and temporary, but my heart told me I MUST participate in the effort to elect a Christian president.

Now Newt has a right to call himself Christian. I think we should, until proven otherwise, accept the moniker a candidate gives himself, and it's possible Newt's conversion to Catholicism and renewal of interest in Christ is a good sign that he had changed.

However, I think Santorum has the better part.
He intends to take his candidacy further and I pray he wins, just to cheer up the Christian world. Even though I hope he and Newt and all who declare themselves Christians will be raptured before anyone takes office again.

Thinking about Rick and his family made me realize that my Catholic "part" is very strong still, even though I can't find an expression in any parish in my vicinity.
 
Santorum is a Statist and a hypocrite.
 
The only REAL way to get a "Christian" president is to be on our knees asking the Lord to put him in office. But just because that is what we want to see doesn't mean God will answer.

Jesus told us how to pray- "THY WILL BE DONE". That is what I prayed during the 2008 election, and I saw many a Christian upset by Obama being voted in. I said on a forum somewhere- What if this is GOD'S WILL?

I think that the way in which our country and world is headed is so that God's will is done. Its weird to see so many Christians surprised and upset by our government and "leaders". We need to be aware of what is coming to us.

The last 2 scriptures in the Bible are these:

He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.
--Revelation 22:20,21

That's what I say- COME LORD JESUS! :) Although the world is crumbling around us, if we have a biblical worldview- it shouldn't worry us or make us run around in circles screaming "what is going on??"

Read your bibles folks. The Lord has given us knowledge pertaining to the end times, in which we are living. Do not be surprised by immoral leaders, laws, etc. That is to come. The ruler of the world is currently Satan. Until Jesus reigns, it is going to be a bumpy ride. The only way to have a seatbelt is to have Christ, truly. Then and only then can we have peace with the chaos around us.
 
Attack on Tehran is Attack on Moscow

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/151739#.TxzA3zj4J6u

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=254125
 
In response, it does appear that God has left us to unsound government, and perhaps trying to get sounder government is folly, in that case. We always remember His admonition, though, "Occupy until I come."

I doubt if Santorum is a hypocrite. What may be true of him, as of all of us, is that we fail to understand where we are at fault while we are committing our fault. Eventually, with God's grace, we realize where we erred.

That said, it is probably impossible for a political leader to be perfect in all things. It is just too complex, trying to listen to and respond to so many and varied people. We will not get a perfect leader even if God's mercy allows us a better one.

I don't expect we Christians will be here many more years, so it may be moot, but, again "Occupy till He comes."
 
P.S. What is a "statist"? I have not heard this word.
 
Gingrich Takes Up the Neo-Cons' ‘National Greatness’ Mantra
Posted by Bill Anderson on January 22, 2012 08:13 PM

Newt Gingrich, after winning the evangelical "open marriage" vote in South Carolina, now is about to embark on some "major speeches" that will be "visionary." Yes, like the Neo-Cons, who preach Pyramid building as "national greatness," Gingrich is going to try to bring back NASA and the space program.

Riding the momentum of his South Carolina win on Saturday, Newt Gingrich said Sunday he planned a week of big speeches offering “big solutions for a big country.”

“I’ll be at the space coast in Florida this week giving a speech — a visionary speech — on the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition,” the former House Speaker said on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.”

However, as they say on late-night TV, "Wait! There's more!"He said the days leading to Florida's Jan. 31 primary would include other speeches on health care, housing, the economy, Cuba, and Latin America.

“I hope really once a day to do something very positive and clear about positive ways of moving forward as a country to get back on the right track,” Gingrich said.

Yes, this is Newtie at his best, the Great Visionary, The Man With All The Answers. No doubt, he has a great vision for the rest of us, but somehow I doubt that he plans to take part in what he proposes to impose on everyone else.

There now. Doesn't that inspire us all? The quintessential lying politician.
 
Anonymous 2:46
So you've been an evangelical all
your life ?
So being an evangelical hasn't
cleaned up your speech and
communications any better than
that ?
You sound more like a friend of
the world to me.
 
Paul: I posted the Bill Anderson post at 2:41. I am responsible for the last two sentences. Bill Anderson for the remainder. Shall I assume you are offended by the last two sentences? And does that mean the phrase "lying politician" offends you? If so you ARE a delicate thing. Most, if not all, politicians are liars. It's required to be one.
I never claimed to be an evangelical. Based on what I see of most of them I wouldn't want the label.
 
No, Anon 8:58,
I was referring to the Bill Anderson
quote, which you didn't put in quotes.
My mistake, I guess.
 
No wait, I was referring to the
2:46 am quote, from much earlier,
as I said.
 
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/01/20/evangelicals-ron-paul-and-war/
 
Simply put, the word Evangelical has
been highjacked and co-opted by
war mongers, and money-grubbing
creeps.
The word evangelical is supposed to
mean, and once did mean, a person
who believes that the Gospel of Jesus
Christ should be published and
preached throughout the world,
period.
It's the "leadership" of that group,
and it's the "leadership of many
other groups, most other groups,
that ARE the problem.
Do you think all Jews want to be
represented by Netanyahu and the
Zionists? Do you believe all Catholics
are happy about the policies of
this present Vatican Council ?
I can tell you as a Protestant that
I want nothing to do with Rick
Warren or Joel Osteen or Crystal
Cathedrals or Dominionism, but
that's exactly who's taking it upon
themselves to speak for Protestants
these days.
And that's part of what makes
Mrs Cumby's message so important.
Just look at all the deception going on !
 
The scientific research on their apparently more "population reduction" than "flu reduction" was noted by me a few days ago and I found it extremely frightening. I meant to comment here, but did not get to it and KUDOS to anonymous 5:28 for doing so.

I'm going to be interviewed by Dr. Stanley Monteith on his radio program in another hour and 40 minutes and it might come up then as well.

Thanks!

Constance
 
I personally agree with Marianne Ginther Gingrich's assertion that if Gingrich had really reformed he would have apologized to her. Also, he inverted his daughter's 13 year old janitorial job which was occasioned by extreme need for financial resources during that period because Newt had abandoned the family and refused to pay support.
 
I just found several comments in the spam filter section. Ten such comments were there. Two were clearly spam. I cleared the rest for posting. I thought they went to this article, but it could have been for an earlier one.

Sorry!

Constance
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJNsBNCbvOY&feature=g-all-bul&context=G27036d0FAAAAAAAAAAA
 
I think part of the problem of evzsngelicals, is that they (I would have said we but I joined Eastern Orthodoxy a while back) have kept an enormous amount of baggage on coming to Christ. All kinds of unexamined stuff, baptised sin, oh sure, the obvious stuff like homosexual acting out and abortion and so forth are wrong, but the idolatry and self centered obssessions that EO spirituality calls "the passions" and St. Paul calls "the flesh" are held to with a, well, passion.

One of these passions is to find a bandwagon and jump on it. yes, this happens in EO cultures as well, but less I think among those who are more Kingdom of Heaven focussed, who have either joined as converts because of seeking truth or have despite growing up in a culture with EO trappings have sought and pursued holiness.

Holiness is an idea in evangelicalism partly inherited from Wesley, through various degrees of removal, who was himself heavily influenced by the early church writers or fathers or patristic writers as they are variously called.

Vote? don't look for a savior. For one thing, the president doesn't really matter that much, except regarding application or not of federal laws and whether he gets us into or out of a war, or something like that. The president is not a king who can rule by decree, so it doesn't matter what he thinks about some things.

It may be that all the players are NWO or otherwise unhealthy, so you have to think lesser of two evils. Myself I got so disgusted I didn't vote the last two times out. I probably won't again, unless MAYBE for Ron Paul IF he gets the nomination, and he is far more ahead than the news media are letting on. And that vote would be because he is less likely to get us into WW 3 or keep us in it if it is going on when he gets into office,
and less likely to use the NDAA and martial law possibilities that others might, given the opportunity.

(Granted, in some situations, martial law would be preferable. but there is a right way and a wrong way to conduct this.)

Ron Paul is a Libertarian, and frankly I dislike libertarianism as an appeal to pride and vainglory and could be viewed as compatible with the elite side of NWO thinking, as opposed to what the rest of us are supposed to think. However, in the present environment, he probably can't do the harmful things that he wants to do, like dismantle Social Security and Medicare, and he can and likely would prevent some things that might happen on anyone else's watch. That said,he has an unfortunate track record for associating with racists. But there has been no lack of subtle support of racism in an indirect way by the GOP anyway.
 
www.maitreyaelanticristo.fullblog.com.ar
 
To Jenna @ 6:41 PM:

Re: Obama being voted in...
"What if this is God's will?"

Reminder: Since each of us human beings was born with a FREE WILL, Obama's election in 2008 probaby had more to do with 'man's will being done' rather than God's.

In other words, 'God's will' would be for all of mankind to obey all of the Ten Commandments; but, of course, mankind constantly falls far short of achieving that.
 
To Paul:

Re: 'the word Evangelical has
been highjacked'

Now, you know how we traditional Catholics feel about being 'lumped in' with more radical elements of our church!!!
 
Justina,

Everybody has their struggles. It might be fun to bash Catholics or Protestants, but the Eastern Orthodox are forgetting something.

Orthodoxy has been protected from attacks in the West, because it's perceived as a minority, and it's theology is not as well known.

Not because you are better than others.


Savvy
 
anon 8:47 "In other words, 'God's will' would be for all of mankind to obey all of the Ten Commandments; but, of course, mankind constantly falls far short of achieving that."
this is what is sometimes callede the difference between God's perfect will and God's permissive will.

However, free will is overrated, it is not absolute, and God sometimes restrains or directs us, other timesw lets our evil become full if He has decided to give up on us and let the chips fall where they may.

Then there is a midrange.

Obama's platform was not evil, but whether he is stepping cautiously to avoid assassination, or just failed because of bipartisan opposition whenever he stepped on the toes of that part of the NWO that is big pharma and other big money that owns the congress, or because he was a fraud, is anyone's guess. So far he has not got us out of Iraq but is scaling back.

All these overthrow of various Arab govts. so far have resulted in bad news for Christian populations there. But it may be too late to reverse that political trend (unless God wills to do so).

The tendency to view Obama in messianic terms, however, was not a good sign regarding the state of spiritual health of some people.
 
anon 11:50 "Orthodoxy has been protected from attacks in the West, because it's perceived as a minority, and it's theology is not as well known.

Not because you are better than others."

I didn't say that that superior theology was what was in and of itself necessarily protecting it, certainly even Calvinist theology is superior to New Age versions of Christianity.

The point was that it was isolated, also where under foreign heel protected by shariah under the dhimmi code that normally prevented, as long as the tax was paid, efforts to convert, and a lack of ecumenicism as the conveyorbelt to heresy.

These situations have changed, especially in Europe and America, where two major things seem to be undermining the theology.

one, thanks to the influence of worldly ideas coming into Russian Orthodoxy and a particular metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, who almost went on a heresy trial because of it, a denial of the substitutionary atonement and paying for sin angle on the Atonement, and an emphasis on all the other things that flow from this, contrary to Orthodox doctrine of all centuries to now, as being instead of this, and ignoring the Blachernae Constantinople AD 1156 clarifying statement, because of another issue, that Christ as well as The Father received Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, and two, the infestation of worldly and even New Age influenced notions and priorities. Some of the worldly priorities was present in the Serbian pseudo Orthodoxy and folk versions of any Christianity are often shallow. The Serbian iconography often isn't normal, the suffering saints and many who were slaughtered in contexts more political than religious, are depicted looking sad, instead of the normal depiction of saints and martyrs as glorified in Christ because of their sufferings. I could go on and on about them, but they over equate the church as mystical body of Christ with Christ Himself, and of course their ethnic group IS that body.

Orthodoxy has better discipline overall than the Protestants and evangelicals, and when it comes to ideasa like theosis roughtly equivalent to regeneration in evangelicalspeak, it is always made clear that we become godlike in the sense of like God by grace, not like God by nature. The distinction between Creator and creature is always kept distinct. The warnings against deception are there. Both these issues are left unaddressed or in some cases denied in evangelical scenes. Though an amillennial bias was adopted, it is not like the dominionist or postmillenial notion.

As for the theology itself, it is essentially that of the early church unchanged, and all the heresies you may have read about and shown from The Bible are heresy, were fought in the early days and still rejected. That is how the Creed was developed, to make a systematic statement that would exclude all wrong thinking.

The Roman Patriarch split from the rest over supremacy and the filioque, and you evangelicals and Protestants, when you recite the Creed, do so with the filioque included having unquestioningly adopted it from Rome at the Reformation.

The filioque is the statement that The Holy Spirit proceeds (as point of origin and ground of being) from The Father AND THE SON, which is contrary to what Jesus said and to the core Tradition from the start of the Church.

Any theology, however sound or flawed, must be held by individuals. This is something an excessive corporate sense about the church overlooks. There were times when heresy was in control and dominant in the population, and only a few held to the truth. God overthrew that situation back then, and will do so again regarding whatever is going wrong in Orthodox churches, and among other Christians. Even the heretic Copts seem to be moving in the direction of accepting the two natures of Christ duophysite position of Chalcedon, held by EO, RC and mainline Protestant confessions, and the only thing you can deduce from Scripture and have no contradictions result.
 
Justine,

You point is well taken. I did not mean this to get into a theological debate, over this issue.

Yes, I am aware that all three think they are right in their views.

The Filioque would certainly be heresy, when added to Greek, a point RC's agree with but not in Latin.

"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 The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences."

(Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)
 
The issue with Protestant theology is the failure to accept the law of non-contradiction.

Private revelation has to be consistent with what's already been revealed theologically.

If not it comes across as God contradicting himself.

People often claim use the Holy Spirit to promote what "they" want.

There's also the refusal to distinguish between theology and social teaching subject to cultural/historical changes.

For example. Jesus is God is theology, changing views on slavery or the death penalty is social teaching.

This makes it easy for wholescale hijacking to take place.
 
slavery is social BUT how it is conducted is not just social but has to do with the sort of righteousness that Christ demands, or lack thereof that He will punish for. Paul warns that masters must remember they also have a Master in Heaven, Who is "no respecter of persons" i.e., your status, family relationship or whatever does not give you any rights to abuse or otherwise sin.

The jubilee and seven year release law would be something relevant as a justice and mercy issue, not as keeping Mosaic ritual code.

The death penalty is opposed nowdays by Orthodox, but the arguments are bad. That Christ was a victim of such has no bearing on its propriety, which is about does someone deserve to die or not? Its application can be a problem of righteousness, when you have people dying because of financial issues resulting in bad representation, or because of killing a rapist or a murderer who escaped death on a technicality or when self defense is treated as something you have to prove beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, instead of they have to prove it wasn't self defense. Also, I think that while private wars must be avoided, the occasional vigilante should be punished for violating good order not for the killing or beating itself. But since no such distinctions are made, the death penalty is dubious. However, eliminating it entirely, like eliminating flogging would send a bad message. Reinstating flogging would be both biblical and financially and socially preferable to prison in many cases. They learn more trouble from each other there.

The slavery system in the Old South was unbiblical. Granted some of it got worse in the laws after some slave revolts, but these wouldn't have happened if they were being all that well treated anyway.

As one southerner put it, either these people were not fully human, or the pro slavery whites would have to admit that they were themselves not good Christians, and their pride of course wouldn't allow the latter.
 
Carl Teichrib and I are discussing "globalization," regionalization, "pluralism" vs. "diversity" and related developments on MY PERSPECTIVE in another 1 1/4 hours.

Join us, thanks!, at www.themicroeffect.com.

Constance
 
"The issue with Protestant theology is the failure to accept the law of non-contradiction."

Umm, all Christians have to face that. Jesus is man, man is not God, Jesus is God... And the Lord is one God, Father Son and Holy Spirit..
 
"The death penalty is opposed nowdays by Orthodox, but the arguments are bad."

Too right they are! God COMMANDED the death penalty for murder to all mankind after the Flood (Gen 9). Not just to Israel. And unlike Israel's law, this command is not rendered obsolete by the Crucifixion; it has never been repealed. Many Christians mistakenly suppose that because the covenant with Israel through Moses is outdated, so are all other commands in the OT. Such Christians need to realise that there are other covenants in the OT, eg that with Noah, and it is still in force.

Furthermore, Paul commends the sword as an instrument of justice (Rom 13); and God commanded the death penalty for various offences in Mosaic Law. Christians who assert that the death penalty is always wrong shouuld be asked if they think God was wrong to command it in the Law of Moses.
 
"As for the theology [of Eastern Orthodoxy] itself, it is essentially that of the early church unchanged"

No. It is Christian theology after two huge changes: (1) the change from a Hebrew to a Greek milieu, which had led to the analytical tools of Greek philosophy being put above the scriptural notions to which they are applied; (2) the Establishment of Christianity as the religion of State of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, transforming it into a religion of pomp (great buildings, vestments, ordination etc) which it was socially correct to join.

Re the filioque, Jesus' words in John's telling of the Last Supper make it clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds temporally from the Father. Whether the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone or from Father and Son, or indeed whether the relationship between the Three is something different again, is not stated in holy scripture, and I am sorry to see believers dividing over something about which God Himself is silent.
 
Justine,

I never said that the death penalty was always right. I merely said, that it's a social teaching that can be subject to change, but theology cannot.

Liberal theologians arguments make them seem like it's the same thing.

Comparing how churches treat women's ordination or gay marriage to how they treat slaves etc.
 
Anon@6:21

You need to read the writings of the early church that predate the 4th century, to learn more about early Christian beliefs and practices.

They were NOT Protestant.

There were also various heresies which made it necessary for the Christian church to refute them with the help of a Creed and Councils.

It was not like the Bible felt out from the sky and Christians were automatically reciting the Creed.
 
"Comparing how churches treat women's ordination or gay marriage to how they treat slaves etc."

yes that is a false comparison, and there is a tendency on left and right to package mutually irrelevant issues
as package deals sort of if this, then that.

the unexamined premise of gay rights, is that whatever you feel and want to do is okay. For instance, there was some football player who, after some brain injury, found he liked guys, so he became gay. As a straight he probably thought it was okay to sleep with any woman he could get. So of course, when he got rather, ah, different, feelings, he went with them. If he had been a moral person he would have figured, "gee, I am getting homosexual feelings, I fancy that guy? but I am male, and therefore something is going wrong with me, therefore I must not act on this, or cultivate it, and I must find some support against this, hey, the fact this could happen in context of a brain impacting sports injury might be ammunition for restoring recognition of homosexuality as an abnormal thing." but no, he goes gay. It was in the news.

Ordination of women is a whole other ball game. I cawn make a biblical and archaeological argument for ordaining women, a Roman pope Gelasius in the mid 400s AD complained of this being done where men were too few, but I personally oppose doing this. Why? because it always seems to be part of a bad agenda. And the arguments for it are all about "me," wanting to use "my" gifts, or "us" wanting women to be represented in power, blah blah. Not valid reasons for either sex. More of a careerism and egocentrism motive. the "us" is the larger self, the group (ethnic, gender, family, tribal) that the self identifies with, and places its interests above all others, a disguised selfishness.
 
"You need to read the writings of the early church that predate the 4th century, to learn more about early Christian beliefs and practices.

They were NOT Protestant."

Interestingly, and something the EO people don't like to hear, is that the farther back you go, the more the early writers sound evangelical, in simplicity of expression and heavy use of The Bible, than writers of the past 1,000 years who are more likely to quote the fathers than The Bible.

The Apostolic Fathers are most like this, then more elegant style came in with the Patristic writers, but the same heavy focus on Scripture.

Correct, they were not Protestant in some ways, especially the predestination thing. One analysis is that the corporate body is what is predestined, individuals are another thing. I have noticed that Paul shifts from "us" predestination in Ephesians to "you who believed also because of our preaching" having the same advantages, so that there may be a seed group and others more catch as catch can.

"It was not like the Bible felt out from the sky and Christians were automatically reciting the Creed."

yes and no. The Church defined as the Councils did not make The Bible, it merely reaffirmed the Tradition from The Apostles, as to what was Apostolic and what was not and to only use Apostolic materials, even though some non Apostolic authors wrote correctly, only Apostles were to be taken as authoritative writers.

Irenaeus in AD 180 and the Muratorian Fragment Canon and others show that all the books we use now in the NT were already considered Scripture. The Councils only made proclamations about all this to eliminate non Apostolic and even heretical materials from creeping into use.

What both RC and EO err in, is the use of the idea of an oral tradition that got written down.

Properly, an oral tradition is two or three generations old, may 50 to 100 years. In fact, the only oral tradition was during the early phase of the preaching by the Apostles, and preaching by those who heard and believed them, and was committed to writing by them or at their order, before AD 70. Only Hebrews MIGHT have been written after that, and of course Revelation and The Gospel of John, which places most of the action in and around The Temple as if to appeal to a nostalgia for the recent loss.
 
Justina,

I am confused now. Are you Eastern Orthodox or still Protestant.

It's true that the councils only figured out what books were genuine and what books were not.

This however , could not have been done without God given authority and inspiration.

It was the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that determined the canon of scripture, therefore compiling the Bible.

Sacred tradition is commonly referred to as Apostolic tradition, handed down and preserved.

It's important to understanding scripture, since no scripture is of any private interpretation.
 
I am not going to confuse readers any more than necessary with EO technical lingo. In any case, it is the same thing being referred to and The Fathers often used the word Scripture or simply named the Gospels and Epistles they were quoting from.

I am Orthodox, and I became that way BECAUSE of sola scriptura, as distinct from sola-what-so-and-so-calvin-or-luther-or-modern-experts-say-is-scriptura. And I pursued the Protestant desire to find the early church, to recover it, into EO. The Bible showed me early on in my conversion to Christ in the late 1970s that none of the available denominations were without some problem, though except for the heretic cults these weren't bad enough to keep me from worshipping where Christ was the focus.

Eventually I discovered The Ante Nicene Fathers, whose credibility as first priority interpreters of the NT is way beyond that of modern writers, because they were so close in time. Therefore, if Justin Martyr says that the bread and wine were believed before AD 200 to become the Body and Blood of Christ, then that was what was meant by "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." Something pretty obvious by the phrqasing anyway, and St. Paul makes it clear in one of the letters to the Corinthians that this is the case.

There were also practical experience issues, involving Holy Water and blessed objects and their power against evil.

Yes, the councils needed God's guidance and had this, but it didn't take anything miraculous to check on the still recent (compared to us) tradition handed down in the churches of the bishops there, as to what was written by an Apostle or approved by an Apostle, and what was not. Undoubtedly the did have God's guidance even in this, but the Church did NOT create the canon, it RECEIVED the canon from the Apostles who WROTE the books and letters in it and who GAVE it to their disciples, the church.

When pressed on this issue, RC and EO will say that "the church" means the Apostles, but while they are part of it and secondary foundation stones with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone, on which all is founded,

BUT this phrasing plays into the hands of the atheists, pagans and protestant derived heretical groups, because to anyone hearing this phrase, it is affirming that not only the canon but the very content were cobbled together from generations of verbal memory of questionable accuracy, which is not the case.

Even in The Creed, you will note that it is Scrpture and not oral tradition referred to, to validate belief in Christ's Resurrection
"and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures."

Private interpretation in Greek has more to do with the reception of the revelation or giving of it than interpreting it, and the context certainly points that way even in English, revelation, prophecy does not come by the prophet's own intellectual action of any kind.

Interpretation by the Church is important, because these early writers were steeped in Scripture, knew the language and were close in time to those who wrote it and the culture and idioms hadn't changed yet. The average person jumps in The Bible and sees one thing, another sees another, because they don't have time or inclination to read it clear through, more than once, and without preconceptions, and usually are without the original languages or the cultural understanding of implications of language at the time.

I looked over the various doctrines, the claims, compared them to The Bible and history. Eastern Orthodoxy came out on top,
once I knew about it. That came much later, until then I considered myself a generic Christian.
 
Not only do I oppose the ordination of women, I oppose the ordination of men. Holy Scripture is clear that all believers are priests, meaning servant ambassadors who represent God to people (an operational meaning taken from the OT). See Rev 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9. The usual reply to this point from denominations which ordain is that there is an ordained priesthood and an universal unordained priesthood. But why, in that case, do the words of the rite of ordination invariably consecrate the ordinand *as a priest*? The contrascriptural notion of an officer class among God's people has grievous effects. And no, I don't want to abolish the priesthood - I want to abolish the laity.
 
To: Anon@8:06pm

From: Anon@6:21pm, to whom you responded as follows:

"You need to read the writings of the early church that predate the 4th century, to learn more about early Christian beliefs and practices. They were NOT Protestant."

Uh? What I said did not say or assume that. Were you replying to someone else and got the wrong Anon?
 
Christine,

You wrote: "The Bible showed me early on in my conversion to Christ in the late 1970s that none of the available denominations were without some problem..."

Most protestant denominations have doctrines that are close to scripture but are rather short on practical love in the West. Whether you get that outside protestantism is not clear either.

"Eventually I discovered The Ante Nicene Fathers, whose credibility as first priority interpreters of the NT is way beyond that of modern writers, because they were so close in time... Interpretation by the Church is important, because these early writers were steeped in Scripture, knew the language and were close in time to those who wrote it and the culture and idioms hadn't changed yet. The average person jumps in The Bible and sees one thing, another sees another, because they... usually are without the... cultural understanding of... the time."

Though the early fathers were close in time they were far of in terms of culture. They were steeped in Greek philosophy, whereas the NT was written by, with one probable exception, men with a Hebraic background. People talk about interpreting the Bible but for Christians the point is to interpret the NT, and you do that via the OT, not via Plato and Aristotle. And the OT needs no interpretation because it starts with the Creation and builds upon itself.
 
US ready to attack: Iran cornerstone of possible Global War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2893q1sI9es


http://www.youtube.com

/watch?v=2893q1sI9es

Russia Nuclear subs ready for Israel and US Attack on Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfKpgn0eiMM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com

/watch?v=tfKpgn0

eiMM&feature=related


Russia warns US WW3 COMING SOON

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygBBR1gVL3M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com

/watch?v=ygBBR1gVL3

M&feature=related

RT: China Says Either WW3 or New World Order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeQ70AuoJg8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com

/watch?v=NeQ70AuoJg8

&feature=related
 
"Though the early fathers were close in time they were far of in terms of culture. They were steeped in Greek philosophy, whereas the NT was written by, with one probable exception, men with a Hebraic background. People talk about interpreting the Bible but for Christians the point is to interpret the NT, and you do that via the OT, not via Plato and Aristotle. And the OT needs no interpretation because it starts with the Creation and builds upon itself."

Exactly what are you referring to as a Greek import into Christianity? The holiness and goodness of creation is a key point in all the fathers and their fight against heresies, most of which denied this directly or indirectly.

The earliest fathers, the ante nicene crowd, had no Greek philosophy background, and so can see it in the simplicity of style. The early church was TOTALLY Hebraic, even The Holy Liturgy from its earliest points is based on the Temple service, that all were acquainted with. Even the marriage ceremony to now, with its crowns on the couple, is straight out of Judaism.

Among the patristic writers who follow, though a very few were Greek philosophy school trained from the get go most began as steeped in Christianity, which teaching tradition was rooted in the Jewish Apostles and their converts who were Jews, Jewish proselytes, and uneducated ex pagans. St. Paul remarked that very few of the "wise" and very few among the powerful had accepted Christ in his day. Greek philosophy was used as a help to speak to the educated not as an end in itself. St. Basil the Great wrote that the Christian should treat pagan literature as a bee seeksw nectar, going from flower to flower, taking what is useful and discarding the rest.

The primary impact was rhetorical skill not content. St. John the Apostle, in identifying Jesus as the Logos began the borrowing of Greek philosophy terms, since the logos was an impersonal organizing principle underlying everything, and John is saying that it is in fact a person and Jesus Christ is that Person (St. Paul refers to God upholding creation by The Word of His Power.)

Greek philosophy run amok is more to be found in the heretical notions that had to be dealt with.

If you read the fathers, you find they are constantly drawing on the OT along with the NT, and it is the fathers of the west, who underly the RC scholasticism and ways of doing things more, such as Augustine and Aquinas who are head over heels into Greek philosophy.

They are (not all their writings but a lot of them) at http://www.ccel.org and that's a Calvinist college.
 
addendum Origen started as orthodox, but his speculations and allegorizing led him into heresy. This was not evident at first, a few centuries later when his more problematic ideas were being exalted by "origenists," and got examined, The Fifth Ecumenical Council anathematized him and his works, but by then his main vector St. Gregory of Nyssa had already published his philokalia of Origen, containing precisely all the bad stuff and supported the universal salvation eventually of all incl. the devil called apokatastasis or restoration, a misinterpretation of something in the NT.

the Cappadocian Fathers were Origen influenced, but were devoted to the issue of the Trinity, under attack heavily in those days, so the problematic parts of Origen's writings weren't in play. Origenism incl. ideas like the original less materiality of everything before the Fall, a condemned notion later, and correctly condemned, but still to be found floating in some Orthodox circles because of Gregory of Nyssa I suppose, some side reference or his philokalia of Origen or something like that, but totally wrong. I ran into it in an RC to Orthodox convert priest in ROCOR once.
 
"The earliest fathers, the ante nicene crowd, had no Greek philosophy background, and so can see it in the simplicity of style. The early church was TOTALLY Hebraic"

They might not have been *trained* philosophers but they had the Greek-philosophical worldview because that is the culture they lived in, before and after their conversion. Their writings are good for explaining the gospel to the Greek culture of their time, but are no better than a Papuan convert explaining the gospel to Papuans using the categories of Papuan thought. The accidents of time and space which meant that the earliest fathers lived in physical and temporal proximity to Christ has led European culture, a descendant of Graeco-Roman culture, to elevate the writings of the Fathers almost to the level of scripture - ie not God's word but part of a tradition that in practice is not to be questioned. The early church was not totally Hebraic once their ideas had infused it. St Paul's greatest passion after evangelism was to keep Jew and Greek unified in the church, but sadly it didn't work out after his time.
 
Christine,

What I meant by Sola Scriptura was the idea that each individual can interpret the Bible, without the help of the Apostolic church.

This is a Protestant view.

About Augustine and Aquinas, their genius was the ability to pick out the Truth found in Aristotle's writings, like sifting for gold, and throw away the garbage.

Nothing that Augustine and Aquinas gleaned from Aristotle is at odds with Scripture. It illuminated it in the Tradition of the Apostles John and Paul who used Greek philosophy.

Yes, the Apostles used Greek Philosophy.

"...'for in him we live and move and have our being.'
As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "
(Acts 16:28)

Here Paul quotes the Greek poet Epimenides (500BC) and Aratus (300 BC)

In the beginning was the word (Logos) and the word (Logos) was with God. (John 1:1)

Christianity is the perfect synthesis of faith and reason.

So those accusing the church fathers of adopting greek philosophy should throw away the NT itself.
 
Anon@4:32 a.m.

Your rejection of the sacramental/ sacrificial priesthood stems from the rejection of the liturgy.

A priest is one who offers sacrifice. A Christian priest offers the sacrifice of Christ.

The Holy Mass/Divine Liturgy is the sacrifice of calvary made present.

In the liturgy Christ represents both the Priest offering the sacrifice to the father and the people for whom the sacrifice is offered.

Hence we have the priesthood of believers and the ordained priesthood.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist.

The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper.

The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin at any rate understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection"

(J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).
 
Anon@10:07 a.m.

What exactly do you mean by the Greco-Roman worldview?
 
Anon@1:12pm,

Quoting Greek poets is not the same as employing the tools of Greek philosophy and putting them above scripture, is it? Just a way for Paul to make his audience feel at home. Logos in John 1 can be comprehended through the fact that God spoke a Word of power, Let-there-be-light, and it came to pass. All things were created through Him. Nothing resting on Greek ideas there.
 
"Your rejection of the sacramental/ sacrificial priesthood stems from the rejection of the liturgy."

Other way round actually.

"A priest is one who offers sacrifice."

And we are to be a living sacrifice, are we not, doing Christ's will and sacrificing our own.

"In the liturgy Christ represents both the Priest offering the sacrifice to the father and the people for whom the sacrifice is offered."

In your extraordinary view, Christ represents everything except the sacrifice himself, which is exactly what holy scripture said he was - once for all.
 
Anon@1:46 p.m.

What exactly is this Greek philosophy you are referring too?

When did I claim greek philosophy was above scripture?
 
Anon@1.31pm,

Greek worldview: regards spiritual world as superior to material world, whereas Hebraic worldview regards them as a unity. Example: Jews have a prayer of thanksgiving after going to the toilet - that your body is working well and for the relief; Greeks would regard that as an indecent thing to pray about. (So do we, unfortunately.) Sex seen by Greeks as bad for involving loss of self-control; regarded by Hebrews as good (within marriage) like all that is created. Huge and consequences for Greek sexuality. Greeks regard death as a liberation from the body; Hebrews regard it as an enemy that ends relationships. But the Hebraic Bible promises believers a re-embodiment; we do not end up as pure spirit.

Greek worldview: manual work is inferior to mental work. If you can afford it, you hire slaves to do the work needed in the fields to support you. Hebrew view: manual work is a good thing, and all work (except immoral things like prostitution) is sanctified by doing it conscientiously in God's world.
 
Anon@2.15pm,

At 1.46pm I was responding solely to your punchline at 1.12pm that "those accusing the church fathers of adopting greek philosophy should throw away the NT itself." Your evidence for that assertion involved Paul in Athens quoting Greek poets, and Logos in John 1. I nowhere asserted that you (personally) claimed Greek philosophy was above scripture.
 
Anon@1:50 p.m.

"And we are to be a living sacrifice, are we not, doing Christ's will and sacrificing our own."

This does not contradict our participation in the ONE sacrifice of Christ in the liturgy.

There's an old saying, "As we worship, so shall we live"

"In your extraordinary view, Christ represents everything except the sacrifice himself, which is exactly what holy scripture said he was - once for all."

Okay, I made a mistake here. In the liturgy Christ is both priest and victim.

I meant to say that Christ also offers his mystical body the church to the Father in his sacrifice.
 
Anon@2:19 p.m.

The Greco-Roman philosophy you bring up is rejected by the legitimate church fathers, as Christine said and gave you the link to their writings.

http://www.ccel.org

This is also rejected by Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Maybe you should find out what people actually believe before bearing false witness.
 
Sorry to make this confession, but much of the preceding discussion IS GREEK TO ME, no pun intended!

Constance
 
Well Constance,
Maybe that's because it's an
intellectualizing of what was,
and is, not an intellectual pursuit.
Neither Jesus nor the Apostles
were nearly as cerebral as some
of your current commenters,
who consider the Gospel of Jesus
Christ, to be a chance to impress
everyone with their deeeep
erudition. As if Peter and his
brother Andrew, the fishermen,
or anyone else in the New
Testament for that matter were,
self-important, hair-splitting,
itchy-eared scholars, digging
up ancient debates and heresies
and re-hashing them, all of which
serves to confuse most people.
 
Anon@3.10pm,

Where the Fathers saw it in the churches of Graeco-Roman culture then Yes they rejected it alright, eg Manichean dualism. My point is that oft-times it was there and they didn't see it because they themselves had Greek spectacles, so it got into the church. That's why Augustine said that sex was not good even in marriage, as it involved lust which was a sin. What nonsense! And Greek philosophy led to endless futile discussions on the dual nature of Christ and on the Trinity - matters which Paul, the one theologian whom God anointed to write scripture, did not bother with at all. How presumptuous to analyse a God whom we can know personally! Going beyond scripture in ways like that has led to schism over those extrascriptural matters between Bible-believing Christians, which is a tragedy. The filioque schism was one such. Another was the rejection of the Nestorians, and consequently the denigrating of the large church that flourished for 1000 years to the east of the ancient Roman Empire, east of Eastern Orthodoxy and reaching as far as China. It has all but been written out of church histories because they were slandered as heretics. We'll meet plenty of them in heaven; get to know their story now.

All this I lay at the door of Greek influence: Married couples who either have sex lives needlessly tainted with guilt or find the church untrustworthy; needless schism between geuine believers. You slandered me as bearing false witness; please be a little slower on the trigger.

Paul: I'm sorry you think I'm showing off. This stuff really does matter, witness my comments about sex and schism.
 
Well . . . the following is a different context of "New Age" Gingrich than I've seen before, but the ironic humor did not escape this which I just viewed on Google News:

Last night's second (third?) coming of Newt Gingrich strongly suggests that the GOP 2012 campaign is actually in full scale freak out mode now.

Commentators swear that the base accepts Mitt Romney scores better nationally, but they're angry and they won't let him have the nomination without a fight. I've heard that contention but it doesn't quite ring true.

Because, I mean, if a place like South Carolina can hold its nose and vote for a publicly disgraced serial adulterer with more skeletons in his closet than a Hammer Horror film, we really must have entered a new political age.

And in that new age the religious credibility of 'values voters' has vanished in a perfumed cloud of mistresses.


Read more: http://tinyurl.com/7gjhejo
 
Anon@3:10 p.m.

I have no idea where you're getting these views from. But. let's take a look at them.

"That's why Augustine said that sex was not good even in marriage, as it involved lust which was a sin."

Augustine was talking about the use of artificial contraception in sex, that destroyed the self-giving of husband and wife.

Not marital sex in itself.

The early church fathers held similar views.

"I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed.

Those who do this, although are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame.

Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives].I dare say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife." (Marriage and Concupiscence, 1:15:17, 419 A.D.)

At that time only those heretics who had pre-martial or extra marital sex used contraception in order not to have any children.

This was forbidden for Christians, because the total self-giving of husband and wife should be total and not based on conditions.

How else could husbands lay down their lives for their wives if they were only seen as sex objects, and nothing more?

They would not learn to sacrifice for their wives and family.

You should know Augustine also compared marital sex, to the union of Christ and the church, therefore contraception was wrong, because it held back total self-giving, and also produced the idea that the body was separate from the soul.

"And Greek philosophy led to endless futile discussions on the dual nature of Christ and on the Trinity - matters which Paul, the one theologian whom God anointed to write scripture, did not bother with at all."

This was because there was heretics leading Christians astray by claiming that Jesus was just divine and not human, or the opposite.

The Gnostics said Jesus only a divine nature and not a human one. This was the denial of the incarnation that Jesus Christ came in the flesh!

The church had to combat these claims, and they had to be as smart as their opponents.

"Another was the rejection of the Nestorians"

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb.

The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

It would have resulted in dualism, between body and soul. A greek concept, not a Jewish one.

It's heresy that leads to schism. Just look at the number of Protestant denominations.

There are more Protestant denominations than there are Protestants.

The early church did not want to end up with so much division.

Yes, it's sad that your pastors continue to lie to you about these things, to keep you in their brand new churches.
 
regarding Augustine, first, yes he DID say that sex in marriage that wasn't for procreation was bad, and said that a wife who is kept for pleasure not reproduction only is nothing more than a married prostitute.

No, the early church DID NOT forbid contraception, only abortion and most contraception in those days was poisonous brews to cause abortion. Of all the canons on the subject, only one does not explicitly in detail state this, and the overall context of time and canons is such that it is just another in that vein.

The attitude that sex has to be for reproduction or allow it, which the RC has, is NOT biblical, because Paul DOES NOT ONCE MENTION THIS AS A REASON FOR MARRIAGE, always it is to avoid fornication and the single state is preferred as having less distractions from work for God. The married man and woman are both described as caring for things of this world, how they may please the spouse.

The OT takes reproduction for granted as an outcome but focusses on the companionate angle from the start.

The monastic trend in Christianity was about surpassing the physical and getting everything of oneself and all one's thoughts and feelings
under control.

Augustine is generally despised in Orthodoxy now, because of some points in his writings that were unknown to the fathers of the council that dealt with Pelagianism, when they approved him, because his writings at the time were against pelagianism (which denies original sin having an impact and claims we can be righteous without God's help) and he also had a reputqation for fighting against paganism and manichaeism.

When I say "early fathers" I am not talking about Augustine or Aquinas.

Neither of these two relied on the Bible, but heavily on personal lines of thought and philosophy. While it is not obviously departing from Scripture when you read it through the grid of the philosophers, the result is bound to include some misinterpretation, because something "has" to mean a when it might mean b.

Now with revealed knowledge from God, if this goes off the track of the philosophers, we are not to try to subject it to them, but to follow Scripture instead, and recognize that human reason cannot comprehend everything.

This the early fathers (mostly Byzantine and some not) did.

As for a papuan explaining to a papuan, well, then, how about an American explaining the faith to an American? What makes you think our culture or mental categories are so perfectly biblical?

The pagan world and the later gnostics, had two trends, ascetic based on inferiority and evil of the flesh, and indulgence of the flesh. The latter could incl. demanding asceticism of others while one indulged oneself, so to speak, as in double standards of sex and class privilege and conquest and so forth.

Newt would fit the latter, soul is unaffected by body so do whatever.

Christianity and Judaism would say, soul is affected by what body does, some things are good some are bad.

By the way, I have never had any trouble praying on the toilet, before or after my conversion to Orthodoxy.
 
Dear Anon@6.11pm,

I am not in a congregation run by a 'pastor' but by a council of Elders, just as the NT describes; and what I wrote was not gained from them but from my own reading. You would do well to stick with dealing with my arguments rather than with personal details of somebody about whom you know nothing.

Augustine conjectured that fallenness was transmitted from Adam down to our parents to us by the sin of lust involved in our conception. And in his sermons he stated that more sex than was necessary for a married couple to have children was sinful. Drivel, and very Platonic. Also taken up by at least half of the (fairly) early church, showing that it too was very platonic in its thinking. You can't dismiss Augustine as a lone quasiheretic when the Western church enthusiastically adopted his Hellenistic views. I never mentioned contraception, by the way. You did.

Obviously the church was right to combat various heresies that Jesus was not fully human or fully divine. But it committed itself to a view of HOW He was fully human and fully divine, thereby labelling as heretics those who believed He was both but had a different understanding of how. That was the basis of the slandering of the Nestorians. In the NT Mary is called the "mother of Jesus" and that is good enough precedent for me.

"It's heresy that leads to schism. Just look at the number of Protestant denominations. There are more Protestant denominations than there are Protestants."

I do not agree. It is lack of love that leads to schism between people who profess the Bible. And the very definition of denomination inplies a hierarchy, which is not something you find in scripture. Had the church stayed as a set of autocephalous congregations in different locations, each run by a council of elders, as is described in scripture, then schism would have been confined to one place.

How many protestant denominations do you think there are, BTW?
 
"As for a papuan explaining to a papuan, well, then, how about an American explaining the faith to an American? What makes you think our culture or mental categories are so perfectly biblical?"

I don't! And the argument in which I mentioned Papuans nowhere assumed I did.
 
"Eye of Newt" Gingrich is a 33rd degree Mason. 'Nuff said!
 
By the way, Constance, I'm in the middle of reading "The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow"- EXCELLENT and revealing work! Thank you for all the years of hard work and research you put into it!
 
I've heard it said that "People get the government they deserve." America has, for the very most part REJECTED our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and His Holy Word, The Holy Bible.
As the end of all things is at hand, getting rotten Satan-worshipping politicians as "leaders" may be God's very warning judgment on our hedonistic ways. No civilization can stand for very long when they reject the very God Who blessed them in their beginning. I love my country, but I love Jesus Christ and His Holy Word MORE than anything or anyone, and it grieves me to see our downfall, but I do understand it.
 
Anon@7:22 p.m.

"Augustine conjectured that fallenness was transmitted from Adam down to our parents to us by the sin of lust involved in our conception. And in his sermons he stated that more sex than was necessary for a married couple to have children was sinful."

Your view of Augustine stems from what's known as the pelagian controversy.

This article is too long to copy and paste, but yes it explains what Augustine really said.

It's not what you think.

http://www.jknirp.com/aug3.htm

"But it committed itself to a view of HOW He was fully human and fully divine, thereby labelling as heretics those who believed He was both but had a different understanding of how. That was the basis of the slandering of the Nestorians. In the NT Mary is called the "mother of Jesus" and that is good enough precedent for me."

Was the How important?

Yes, because Jesus human nature cannot be separated from his divine nature.

It affects so many things, such as the whole way in which the meaning of church is seen.

The Church is inseparably visible and invisible just as Christ is inseparably human and divine.

Evangelicals on the other hand claim that the church is only invisible.

The Body cannot be separated from the head.

Little errors in the beginning can produce bigger ones later on.

"It is lack of love that leads to schism between people who profess the Bible."

Yes, I agree with this. Amen!

"And the very definition of denomination inplies a hierarchy, which is not something you find in scripture. "

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

Each of these churches possessed the same threefold ministry. Without this threefold ministry, Ignatius of Antioch said, a group cannot be called a church.


"Had the church stayed as a set of autocephalous congregations in different locations, each run by a council of elders, as is described in scripture, then schism would have been confined to one place."

But, this was not how the early church functioned, there were three distinct offices in the church.

I disagree with your last assertion.

I appreciate the fact that you are concerned with Unity and healing divisions, but truth cannot be compromised for unity.

I hope you understand.
 
I would also like to add that since I am taking leave of this blog, to attend to other commitments, perhaps Christine or someone else can continue this theological debate.
 
Never before seen photos inside Hitler's private world...

http://tinyurl.com/83ohrgl
 
Constance I just came back to this blog roll after being away a few days, and see that you have posted some interesting comments on Newt's culpability. While I do say he's got a right to accept Christ, as all sinners do, I do agree with you that he is NOT a proper candidate for President. He and Romney seem to be neck and neck and Santorum is going home for the weekend (not going to be in Fla for the vote) as it's winner-take-all in Florida, and he (Santorum) wishes to do his taxes and raise funds for the next fight.

You should read the horrible things said about Santorum on Huffington Post. I do not know why I go there other than my son put it on easy-access sites at the top of the page. I do enjoy baiting them some times; I guess I have become what they call a "troll" and will have to exit to maintain my own dignity and sanity. But I do think Santorum has a lot of guts to face up to a;; this. At least he has a family to go home to. Some of us are utterly alone as Christians. What do we do when we are without a human family for support, oh ye supports of "faith and family."
My son continues his barrage of hate against the faith. I'm so tired of it. Just want to go to my real home.
Anyway, thanks for the dirt on Gingrich. He is a loony and if elected he will be a loony president.
 
The filioque clause was probably devised in response to Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. The filioque served to emphasize, against Arians and Priscillianists, the perfect equality between the Son and the Father.

To the Byzantines, however, the clause also appeared to compromise the primacy ("monarchy") of the Father, which according to the Eastern church is the source of deity. An unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the two points of view was made at the Council of Ferrara-Florence in 1439. The Eastern and Western churches have remained separate, and the doctrine represented by the term filioque stands as one of the primary points of difference between them.

Nothing could be clearer than that the theologians of the West never had any idea of teaching a double source of the Godhead. The doctrine of the Divine Monarchy was always intended to be preserved, and while in the heat of the controversy sometimes expressions highly dangerous, or at least clearly inaccurate, may have been used, yet the intention must be judged from the prevailing teaching of the approved theologians.

And what this was is evident from the definition of the Council of Florence, which, while indeed it was not received by the Eastern Church, and therefore cannot be accepted as an authoritative exposition of its views, yet certainly must be regarded as a true and full expression of the teaching of the West. "The Greeks asserted that when they say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, they do not use it because they wish to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them, as they say, that the Latins assert the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father and the Son, as from two principles and by two spirations, and therefore they abstain from saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. But the Latins affirm that they have no intention when they say the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son to deprive the Father of his prerogative of being the fountain and principle of the entire Godhead, viz. of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; nor do they deny that the very procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, the Son derives from the Father; nor do they teach two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is one only principle, one only spiration, as they have always asserted up to this time."

In fact, to meet some Eastern objections, the Second Council of Lyons explained that the
Spirit proceeds not from two principles but from the Father and the Son as one co-principle. In 1439 another union-council, that of Florence, achieved a fragile accord with the Greek delegation in which the formulas "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son" were recognized as equivalent. But this accord, like that of Lyons, was never received in Greece and Constantinople, which fell under Turkish domination a few years later (A.D. 1453). At the time of the Reformation the filioque was not an issue. It
was accepted as part of the Nicene Creed by Lutherans, Calvinists,
and Anglicans.
 
cont...

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son.


While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.

Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).

Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.

Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length.

cont...
 
cont...






Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:

the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
the so-called Athanasian Creed;
several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
Council of Florence, 1439.

The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally.

Had not Rome overstepped her rights by disobeying the injunction of the Third Council, of Ephesus (431), and of the Fourth, of Chalcedon (451)?
It is true that these councils had forbidden to introduce another faith or another Creed, and had imposed the penalty of deposition on bishops and clerics, and of excommunication on monks and laymen for transgressing this law; but the councils had not forbidden to explain the same faith or to propose the same Creed in a clearer way. Besides, the conciliar decrees affected individual transgressors, as is plain from the sanction added; they did not bind the Church as a body. Finally, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did not require the Greeks to insert the Filioque into the Creed, but only to accept the Catholic doctrine of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.

Currently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) reproduces the Nicene Creed with the added phrase (184) and in the text explains that this Latin formulation does not contradict the Eastern formula
that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, provided
that neither formula is rigidly understood (248).

http://mb
-soft.com/believe/txn/filioque.htm
______________________________

See also.......

http://archive.catholic.com/
library/Filioque.asp
 
Constance Cumbey said...

Sorry to make this confession, but much of the preceding discussion IS GREEK TO ME, no pun intended!

Constance

3:19 PM

Using Facebook protocols, I mark this "LIKE"
 
"The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son."

If this is an error, why did Jesus teach it? Why did He say that He would send The Holy Spirit FROM THE FATHER and also referred to The Holy Spirit as "Who proceeds FROM THE FATHER?"

The Holy Spirit was put into the corporate ekklesia by The Son, but has His origin from The Father.

In eternity, He is from The Father. In time He is from both, but that is not about essential characteristics or origin or ground of being.

I read somewhere, that during the Arian problems in the west, which lasted much longer (the Goths were Arian for instance), a copyist made an error, doubling the "and The Son" from where "with The Father and The Son He is worshipped and glorified" to "from The Father and The Son," as can happen when your eye skips. This is the origin, and because it seemed to authenticate the divinity of The Son, it was jumped on and became popular with the people. Pope Leo III rejected it, believed it personally but denied the right of anyone, popes included, to put it in the Creed without an Ecumenical Council, since he still held the papacy subordinate with all other Patriarchates to Ecumenical Councils. So he forbade its use in The Mass.

This event shows also that papal infalllibility is false, because you can't get more ex cathedra than what Leo III did and said on all this, and what he did and said was, the pope is subordinate to the Ecumenical Councils.

Now, either Leo III was in error, when he stated and acted thus and opposed the filioque in the Mass, in which case ex cathedra on morals and/or faith fails, or the later popes who supported the filioque and papal supremacy were in error, in which case ex cathedra on morals and/or faith fails.
 
filioque and divinity of The Son - actually, this doesn't support this.
Thank God no Arian apologist was sharp enough to catch this, but if you are already committed against the full divinity of The Son, then arguing that He was co spirator with The Father of The Holy Spirit, is only going to raise questions about the full divinity of The Holy Spirit!

I think someone named Macedonius already argued against the divinity or personhood I forget which of The Holy Spirit, I think this was the heresy called Macedonianism.
 
"according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son."

you only get this when you confuse time and eternity. If you send me a book by way of UPS, The UPS sends it to me when it hands it to me, but the ultimate origin is from you.

Procession is about origin and ground of being, not about going from point A to point B. The Confusion here is comparable to the confusion between nature and persons which lies at the root of the nestorian monophysite aka miaphysite heresies, no that was not slander, though nestorius may have been closer to orthodoxy than he appeared to be, he had a problem.

now, if we argue that more than one divine person can or did produce another, we can argue ultimately that they all produce each other.
No. The Father spirates The Holy Spirit, breathing Him forth in a way different from that which constitutes eternal begetting of The Son Who is also The Word.

The Holy Spirit didn't proceed from The Son in eternity or even in time when The Son placed Him in the Church, The Holy Spirit proceeded from The Father, and travelled through Jesus into the Church.

procession as origin is not the same issue as procession from point a to point b.

IF the early Fathers had believed in double procession in eternity as origin, they would have said so when they added the part to the Creed about The Holy Spirit. (Nicene Creed originally dealt with The Father and The Son and the Constantinople council added about The Holy Spirit because He was being denied, so the Nicene is really the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Before all this, there were various baptismal statements of belief, all similar, but worded fluidly enough some places that misinterpretation of a heretical nature could be made, to pretend to orthodoxy.
 
"While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity."

by "Church" of course you mean the slightly heretical and defnitely presumptuous and schismatic Roman "catholic" church, which went into schism from us in AD 1054 and has lied about this ever since.

Humbert placed a bull of excommunication on the altar at Hagia Sophia, which bull was thrown into the street. This bull had not been signed and the pope at issue had died. It was not valid. However Humbert was such a powerhouse in Rome, no one would undo the split.

The Universal unidivided Church was founded in Jerusalem, not Rome. Peter was first bishop of Antioch, which makes Antioch equal to Rome.

NOBODY SPOKE ABOUT PETRINE ORIGINS OF AN EPISCOPAL LINEAGE IN SETTING UP PATRIARCHATES the Councils that deal with the Patriarchates THERE IT EXPLICITLY STATES THAT ALL THIS IS MERELY A MIRRORING OF THE THEN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ORDER IN THE WORLD OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.

By divine Providence it seems that all the five Patriarchates were of Petrine connection, Antioch, Peter first bishop, Jerusalem, Peter's preaching founded it, Alexandria, Peter's son Mark first bishop, Byzantium, Peter's brother Andrew first bishop.

Peter didn't found the Roman church either, he dragged in at the last minute, became bishop and was martyred, the faith was brought by converts who had no bishop and Paul who said he wouldn't build on another's work wrote to them intending to visit and give them some spiritual gift that they could be established, so they were the result of works of his converts and probably of some other Apostles' converts here and there, and had no bishop at the time. Peter arrived to an existing church.

I DO NOT SPEAK AS BLINDLY LOYAL TO ORTHODOXY, I studied both your and EO claims, and history, and concluded that EO told the truth. It is also more biblical than developments later in RC. The very idea of developing doctrine which you love, in itself opens the door to all the abuses and lurking heresies since Vatican II.

Vatican II did not create or mandate the problems that developed, but the limits it put on experimenting depended on the "orthodoxy" of all bishops to keep a lid on things, and there are plenty of them open to question.
There is good reason to believe that active practicing satanists exist among priests, possibly some bishops, and one atheist cardinal.
so any loosening gave them freer play. The status given to Mary is so over the top that the average person would assume she is almost deity you have to explain she is not to counter the message of art and prayers and etc., while no such thing is implied in EO, and the Marian visions all seem to demand focus on Mary instead of Jesus. Personally, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Fatima was an occult and UFO and human fraud all combined. Read Celestial Secrets they look at original records of interviews and so forth locked up for 60 years, and two newspaper ads taken out by spiritualist cults that announced some great thing would happen on that date next year - and it did, the Fatima visions.
 
"The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition."

THERE IS NO BIBLICAL TEACHING OF DOUBLE PROCESSION. NONE.

"Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son."

Even? As if they suppressed something but admit it was preserved in the West? THE EAST PRESERVED THE TRUTH OF SINGLE PROCESSION, THE WEST INVENTED DOUBLE, and any "admission" was more like a complaint!
 
Christine,

I'm not prepared to disagree or agree with you about the interrelations among the Trinity other than to say that it includes a Father-Son relationship. I believe that the sending of the Holy Spirit from the Father, promised in John's gospel, refers to the sending to us - who live in time - rather than the eternal relationship. Believers should not divide over matters about which scripture is not clear. (We have enough trouble keeping unity regarding wholly scriptural matters.) Obviously I agree with you that the filioque should not have been inserted in the Creed.
 
Christine,

When Catholics say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it means that the Son has to be there for the Spirit to proceed from the Father to someone else...because the Spirit is the Spirit of Sonship (see Romans 8:15-17), making the Son's presence intrinsically necessary.

But, the Greeks assumed that Rome was saying that there are two "ultimate causes" or sources of the Spirit -- that both the Father and the Son "breath" the Spirit together and equally. But, that is not the Catholic position and never was.

it is often claimed by Eastern Orthodox that the West’s insertion of Filioque into the Creed violates Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), which reads …

"The holy Council decrees that no one should be permitted to offer a different Creed of Faith, or in any case, to write or compose another, than the one defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea …

As for those who dare either to compose a different Creed or Faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatsoever, they, if bishops or clergymen, shall be deprived as bishops of their episcopate, and as clergymen of their clericate; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized."

Likewise, at this same Council, St. Cyril of Alexandria (as Council president) declared:

"We prohibit any change whatsoever in the Creed of Faith drawn up by the holy Nicene fathers. We do not allow ourselves or anyone else to change or omit one word or syllable in that Creed."

First of all, please notice how, in the quotes from Canon VII of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria above, the prohibition is not against adding to the Creed of Constantinople I (A.D. 381), but rather adding to the Creed "defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea" (A.D. 325);

and, as we already observed, the Creed of Nicaea makes no mention of the Spirit’s procession, but merely reads:

"[We believe] in the Holy Sprit …" (followed by a direct anathema against Arianism.)

So, if one wishes to be technical about it (as some Eastern Orthodox choose to do by using Canon VII of Ephesus to challenge the legitimacy of Filioque), then one must conclude that Canon VII of Ephesus renders the Constantinopolitan Creed itself illegitimate, since it also "added to" the Creed of Nicaea.
 
It's also Constantinople that broke away from the faith.

Ecumenical Council at Constantinople I (381), was originally recognized to be a mere regional council of the Eastern Church.

Not only did the West not participate in it, but Alexandria, the Church’s second see and Eastern primate, was seriously alienated by the proceedings.

For, Canon III of the Council of Constantinople unseated Alexandria from its Traditional position as primate in the East (a prerogative implicitly guaranteed by Canon VI of Nicaea) and made Constantinople itself (an episcopate with no Apostolic founder) into the second ranking see after Rome!

So, the Council of Constantinople I (381) –the same Council that drafted the Constantinopolitan Creed (with its reference to the Spirit’s procession); and a council that was not yet recognized as ecumenical, but merely regional --was a direct challenge to Alexandria’s primal authority in the East.

And, as we will soon see, this would dramatically influence the actions of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus, fifty years later.

Now while, according to Photius (Mansi, III, 596), Rome apparently approved and ratified the dogmatic decrees of Constantinople I (as a mere regional council), Rome did not approve of Canon III and its attempt to give Constantinople primacy over Alexandria and Antioch.

Rather, in the very same year, Pope St. Damasus issued the following decree, defending the Traditional integrity of the three Apostolic patriarchates:

"Although all the catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront, not by the councilor decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior,

Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world.

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that.

The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom.

The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name ‘Christians’ was first applied, as to a new people."

(Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)
 
Also the development of doctrine is not the same as the creation of a new one.

It took the church 300 years to declare that the trinity was dogma, even though it was always believed.

This does not mean that the church invented the trinity.

It's also not mandatory to believe in Marian Apparitions. since it's not an article of faith.

Hence one can be skeptical about this.

The Coptic Orthodox church recognizes it's own Marian apparitions.

As for your comments about Satanism.

Metropolitan Jonah is also said to have been associated with defrocked priest Gleb Podmoshensky who had a large influence on the cult called "The Holy Order of MANS" - a cult described in detail at Rick Ross's cult information website. Jonah wants to make one of the members of this cult - Gerasim Eliel - a bishop. Podmoshensky was even described as Jonah's "guru."

http://www.angelfire.com/hi/HOOM/checkTHISoutMATE.html

http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Person&id=89

The Holy Order of Mans reportedly teaches a system of magic and its founder Earl Blighton was at one time a member of the Rosicrucian Order.

http://www.rickross.com/groups/hom.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/hom/hom4.html

The Holy Order of MANS is described by Pokrov.org ( A Resource For Survivors of Abuse in the Orthodox Churches) as "a gnostic New Age Cult."

http://pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Group&id=37

The following article speaks volumes.......

BEHIND THE DOORS OF REPENTANCE
http://pokrov.org/resource.asp?ds=Article&id=289&sSrch=Holy%20Order%20of%20MANS&sType=Articles

JONAH LEAVE OF ABSENCE
http://ocanews.org/news/JonahLeaveofAbsence2.25.11.html

Among other things, Metropolitan Jonah's problems may have to do with his leadership "style" which has been running afoul of Orthodox synodal standards. There seems to be resemblances between Jonah's approach and that of the Dominion theology Protestant/Evangelicals.
 
A denomination is a NAME.

There are indeed thousands of names.
There is only one faith.

I thank God that He doesn't expect or
require any of the sheep of His pasture
to be egg headed theologians.
 
Christine,

It's not Mandatory to believe in Marian Apparitions. This is not an article of faith.

The Coptic Orthodox church has it's own recognized apparitions.

The development of doctrine is not the same as creating a new one.

It merely means we grow into a deeper understanding of the same.

It took the church 300 years to declare the Trinity to be dogma, but it was already believed.

This does not mean that the church invented the trinity.

You should also note that the Orthodox Church in America is not recognized by all the Orthodox churches.

JONAH LEAVE OF ABSENCE
http://ocanews.org/news/JonahLeaveofAbsence2.25.11.html

Among other things, Metropolitan Jonah's problems may have to do with his leadership "style" which has been running afoul of Orthodox synodal standards.

There seems to be resemblances between Jonah's approach and that of the Dominion theology Protestant/Evangelicals.
 
To Anon@9.06pm,

You wrote in response to mine of 7.22pm, "Your view of Augustine stems from what's known as the pelagian controversy."

Not so, I checked Augustine in his own (translated) words. I know what the Pelagian controversy is.

Re the expulsion of the Nestorians, consider this. In formal logic it is possible to prove anything if you start from a contradiction. Jesus is God. Man is not God. Jesus is a man. If you build from there, rather than from rather more careful statements that are mutually consistent, your opponents will be able to stop at some later point (eg re Mary and Christ) and say your views imply some statement that is obviously heretical, and 'therefore' you are a heretic. That is what Cyril did to the Nestorians. He was operating in bad faith, looking for reasons to divide rather than to unite - consider the fact that at one point at the Council of Ephesus both he and Nestorius were condemned, but he bribed his way back to favour.

"Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons... Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." "

That is far from the model described in the church's own scriptures, wherein a congregation was led by a plurality of episkopoi (whereas today one episkopos (‘bishop’) oversees many congregations). The Greek words presbyteros and episkopos respectively denote maturity and task of oversight within a congregation, and *refer to the same people* as at Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2; plurals in James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 imply there were several in a congregation. And all Christians were priests [hiereoi] - Rev 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9. By what authority did the church deviate from its original apostolic sructure? Whether this happened as early as Ignatius' era makes no difference.
 
It's amazing how some people can write a soliloquy to make it appear as if they know what they're talking about. I often wrote essays in college in the same manner, but really all I said was a bunch of you-know-what.

Rick Santorum is going to be judged by the standards by which he judges others--which is without mercy and compassion. Making a rape victim bear the child of the rapist is cruel--especially if the victim is only a child herself. Perhaps he needs to read about the adulterous brought to Jesus. He gave her compassion. Perhaps, we Christians should follow His example.
 
Paul,

You are right. There is only one faith. Faith in Jesus Christ as true God and true man. The whole point of "filioque" was originally to defend the faith.....faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ against the Arian heresy which claimed that there was a time when the eternal Word did not exist.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Athanasius contra mundi?" ( a.k.a. Athanasius against the world?)

It was St. Athanasius who single-heartedly - and sometimes single-handedly - defended the faith in the divinity of Christ against the pernicious and subtle Arian heresy which failed - whether through ignorance or malice - to perceive the three divine Persons of the Holy Trinity as existing in an absolute eternal NOW ( "I AM WHO AM" ), and subjected the eternal Word of God to time by combining gnostic emanationism ( "one after another" procession in time as opposed to "all at once" procession in eternity) with Christianity to(again)declare that there was a time when the Word did not exist......or that the Word had a beginning.

This goes contrary to the Christian belief that the Son ( a.k.a. the Word of God ) is

one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;..........

Now if the Word is "of one substance with the Father" and Jesus Himself "does what He sees the Father doing" how can the Holy Spirit not proceed from the Father and the Son......or as even the Orthodox put it who have not sunk into the Arian hersy "through the Son."

"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.
John 5:19

Ergo, if the Son "sends" the Holy Spirit, it is because he sees the Father sending the Holy Spirit. To say that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and - or through - the Son is not to be found anywhere in the Bible is just plain wrong.


Just read the following description of Arianism to see what I am talking about. The New Age Movement is rotten with it vis a vis its evolutionary pantheism popularized in modern times by the late Jesuit dissenter and New Age darling Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Hans Kung was also on the brink of formally being crowned with the "hat of Arius" as are other Catholic apostates like Matthew Fox.

ARIANISM
http://www.therealpresence.org/
archives/Heresies_Heretics/Heresies_Heretics_007.htm

If Jesus is not God, then the Messiah has not come and we are not redeemed - and what we are worshipping is a mere creature instead of the Creator- or as the Arians taught a "man who became a god" like the pagan Persian "god-man" Mithra.

For all intents and purposes this notion could have resulted in the paganization of Christianity.

By the way, while it isn't necessary that Christ's sheep be "egghead theologians," Jesus didn't condemn the idea of His followers being "egghead theologians" either - especially when he exhorted his followers to be "as wise as serpents and guileless as doves."

In an ideal unfallen world, simply believing the Gospels would have sufficed.

But we live in a fallen world in which "egghead heretics" gave rise to devout Christian "egghead theologians" who took up the philosophical weapons of the heretics and after "testing the spirits," they kept whatever philosophical weapons conformed to Scripture and made them their own.

This is what later came to be known as "Patristic philosophy and theology." :-)
 
Christine,

Re: THERE IS NO BIBLICAL TEACHING OF DOUBLE PROCESSION. NONE.

"Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son."

_________________________

It is not my intention to be disrespectful, but that is just plain incorrect.

The Bible doesn't use the precise word "double procession" - just as the Bible doesn't use the precise word "Trinity" either. But the teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and ( or "through" as the Orthodox teach )the Son is there in a way similar to the way in which the treaching on the Trinity is there.
I have already cited the passages that clearly indicate this.

By the Way, I didn't think the Orthodox Church mandated an exclusively literal interpretation of the Scriptures.
 
Regardless of your opinion of Ann Coulter, this article of hers on Newt is great:

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-01-25.html

[Thu, Jan 26]
 
http://rt.com/politics/neo-nazi-europe-russia-lavrov-773/

This is an interesting on Russia's concern of a revival of the Neo-Nazis in parts of Europe
 
About Augustine

Augustine's writings on sex and marriage aimed to combat not only the negative views of the Manicheans, but also the over-optimistic views of the Pelagians.

With regard to his anti-Pelagian works, it is also important to bear in mind the nature and terms of the debate in which he sought to defend a Christian understanding of sexual morality against a naturalis­tic exaltation of sex.

In his controversy with the Pelagians, the main point that is of interest here is the nature of concupiscence.

The Pelagians maintained that concupiscence is a natural good, [22] and is evil only in its excesses. [23] Augustine holds that it is in itself a disease or disorder, [24] which accompanies man as a con­sequence of original sin.

St. Au­gustine was of course following in the footsteps of St. Paul, who so bitterly complained to the Romans about the sin-­engendered concupiscence which held him captive, and who so forcefully expressed his longings to be freed from the law of sin that dwelt in his members. [25]

Augustine's attitude towards the body has nothing Manichean to it; but he feels how "our body weighs heavily on our soul," [26] and, again like Paul, he looks for deliverance.

He particularly senses that sexual nature is out of harmony with its original plan, and he longs for that situation of Paradise where sexual desire and activity would not have been subject to libido, [27] and where it would have been possible to engage in marital relations without having instinct tending to dominate over mind and will and love.


Concupiscence in marriage

What then, for Augustine, is carnal concupiscence, if it is not the pleasure of sexual intercourse? [37]

The ambiguity appears in the very marriage act itself: what should be wholly an act of love may be merely an act of selfishness; what should be the greatest physical expression of self-giving and dedication to another—filled therefore with gentleness and consideration—can be reduced to an essentially selfish act, in­tent on satisfying a powerful urge to mere physical self-­gratification.

Spouses who sincerely love each other are readily aware of this element in their relationship which requires pu­rification. They sense the need to temper or restrain the force drawing them together, in such a way that they can be united in an act of true mutual giving, and not one of mere simulta­neous taking.

The husband who cares for his wife will at times find himself in the throes of this conflict. He realizes perhaps that his wife does not want inter­course, and yet he does: or, more accurately, his instinct does. He would wish to have his sexual nature readily obedient to the call of his will, to the control of reason; yet finds that his instinct does not easily obey. He has to master it. This difficulty which he experiences, this "struggle between will and libido,"[46] this threatening presence, also within marriage, of sexual selfish­ness, constitutes the evil of concupiscence which, according to Augustine, married people must learn to use well.
 
Augustine on Marital Chastity

What Augustine means by married chastity emerges from his comments on the Genesis account of Adam and Eve's behaviour before and after the Fall. Before the Fall, they were naked and yet felt no shame (Gen. 2:25): "not be­cause they could not see, but because they felt nothing in their members to make them ashamed of what they saw." [48] In that state of integrated nature, Adam and Eve sensed nothing dis­ordered—no element of selfishness—in the conjugal attraction between them. Not mere instinct, but their mind and will, would have determined the occasions of having marital relations, which would have corresponded fully and effortlessly to their own sense of mutual donation in the exercise of their generative power.

Augustine dwells on our first parents' reaction when, after sinning, they discovered that sexual desire seemed to have broken loose from conjugality: a sense of shame made them cover their members, and they clothed themselves. It is important to bear in mind that this shame was just between the two of them: who, after all, were husband and wife, and were alone. It was precisely into their mutual relationship that shame had entered. They were not ashamed to be husband and wife, nor to express their conjugal affection; but they were ashamed at a new element that threatened the purity which they had experienced in their original relationship.

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

Furthermore Augustine realized that Christ came to restore all things to the way they were before the fall.

Which is grace restored through the sacraments as held by the RC and EO churches.

As opposed to the concept of total depravity even after becoming a Christian held by Luther and Calvin.
 
Susanna,
Thank you for your kind patience with
me.
I guess I get a little cross-eyed from
reading all the long winded holdings-
forth here lately and it occurred to
me that if I were a young person, say,
poking around the internet and I
had been thinking seriously about
Jesus, ( what with all the talk these
days of wars and rumors of wars and
the end of the world, and all such
things ), and I had, by subject matter,
and key words, found myself on
the Constance Cumbey blog, and
I was looking for some answers,
well, what would I find here ?
I'd find that Christians don't get
along or agree on much of anything
regarding their religion or what the
Bible says.
It would seem to me that these same
Christians think that the history
of the faith is all a matter of who
argued the loudest and who was
the most persuasive about all these
things, as opposed to God leading
his people through the ages, choosing
what He wanted in his Bible and
discarding all the other stuff, and
God leading His people through the
wilderness of heresies and lies, and
not so much the smarts of this Saint
or that brilliant scholar, etc., etc.
Because that is the actual truth
of the matter.
The only one who has rescued the faith
from heresies and lies is God himself,
albeit through men and women.
The only one who protects the faith
to this day is God himself, thank God.
And if Saint Peter is actually going to
be at the pearly gates, he's not going
to be checking anyone's credentials
in theology, or giving priority to people
with letters after their name.
I'm afraid it's quite the contrary.

The disciple is not above his (or her)
master.

Of the making of many books there
is no end.

_But Susanna I am thankful for you
and your well tempered intellect,
which didn't attack me, like some
others have.
God bless you.
 
About Cyril,

Cyril and Nestorius wrote letters back and forth arguing their views just like we are on this blog. LOL.

The church just decided that Cyril actually made more sense.

You have to read the letters to figure out the WHY?

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm


Elders in the Church.

The New Testament tendency to use episcopos and presbuteros interchangeably is similar to the contemporary Protestant use of the term "minister" to denote various offices, both ordained and unordained (senior minister, music minister, youth minister). Similarly, the term diakonos is rendered both as "deacon" and as "minister" in the Bible, yet in Protestant churches the office of deacon is clearly distinguished from and subordinate to the office of minister.

In Acts 20:17-38 the same men are called presbyteroi (v. 17) and episcopoi (v. 28). Presbuteroi is used in a technical sense to identify their office of ordained leadership.

Episcopoi is used in a non-technical sense to describe the type of ministry they exercised. This is how the Revised Standard Version renders the verses: "And from Miletus he [Paul] . . . called for the elders [presbuteroi]of the church. And when they came to him, he said to them . . . 'Take heed to yourselves and all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians [episcopoi], to feed the church of the Lord.'"

In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes), the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters. These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros.

They had the authority to select, ordain, and govern other presbyters, as is evidenced by Paul's instructions: "This is why I left you in Crete . . . that you might appoint elders in every town as I directed you" (Ti 1:5; cf. 1 Tm 5:17-22).

The functions indicate that they were two separate things, though at times were interchanged.

I think an exegesis is necessary, instead of a slavishly literal interpretation.
 
I wouldn't trust Augustine on anything to do with sex. He had far too violent a reaction against his own lust to be a reliable guide to how others (and I mean married others) should behave. Paul says that we should prove we are not slaves to our bodies by abstaining for agreed periods for better devotion to the Lord, but he says that afterwards, enjoy each other. Without any Augustinian guilt.
 
Anon@5.30pm,

I believe that I am performing exegesis not literalism when I say that there is no other way to make sense of Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2 than to suppose the presbyteroi and episkopoi are the same people (with one word denoting seniority and the other denoting function). I am glad you agree. I also believe that there is no other way of making sense of 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17 than to suppose that there are several in a congregation. Clearly things changed after the closure of the canon, and my question is: By what authority? May I ask you in turn to beware of eisegesis?

"In other passages it's clear that although men called presbuteroi ruled over individual congregations (parishes)..."

Which passages?
 
Re: St. Augustine on sexuality.

St. Augustine never condemned the legitimate pleasures of sexuality in marriage. What he condemns is concupiscence or libido..."that disordered aspect of sexual desire which breaks away from man's will and from the rational ordering of the sex appetite; which so often makes him experience sexual desire when satisfaction of that desire is either impossible or illicit; which blurs his moral sense, inspiring what his mind reproves: actions that are to be judged "non concupiscendo, sed intelligendo. In a word, concupiscence is the compelling tendency to seek pleasure independently of reason or will. In the absence of concupiscence, which is a consequence of Original Sin, the human reason and will would be the undisputed "master of the house." In the presence of concupiscence the libido or sex appetite is often "master." As in "the tail wagging the dog."

C.S.Lewis paraphrases St. Augustine in saying that as a consequence of Original Sin we have no idea of what it would be like to experience the pure, holy and unspeakably ravishing ecstasies of marital sexuality untainted by any hint of concupiscence.......as our first parents Adam and Eve did before they sinned.


SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
http://www.churchinhistory.org/
pages/booklets/augustine.pdf
 
Anon@6:07 p.m.

Paul never said, husbands, could do with their wives what they pleased. The martial embrace was mutual rather than one-sided.

It was also God-like because of it's relationship between Christ and the church.

Augustine actually sounds like a feminist too me.
 
Anon@6:15 p.m.

The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning.

There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons

(Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).

The canon of the New Testament was not yet decided at this time.

In the Acts of the Apostles, we find a Church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles into the Church, he refers back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem (Acts 11:2).

The mission of the infant Church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22, 27).

The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide the Gentile question, and the council sent a letter of instruction to the new churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23).

Philip, John, Mark, Barnabas, and Paul travel to and from Jerusalem, providing a teaching and disciplinary link between the new churches and the church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James, the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul.

Now, authority is not centered in Jerusalem, but rather vested in Peter and Paul as apostles, as their epistles to the various churches attest.
 
Dear Susanna

Augustine was responsible for the GUESS that lust in the marital act is what transmits the inability not to sin down the generations. But guess it is for God does not say so, and I am aware of alternative guesses; I also think it is characteristic of Augustine's obsession with his own lust.

Did he not believe that sex was wrong when a wife could not get pregnant, eg when already pregnant or after the menopause? And if not him, did the church not take this view? Genesis 2 is clear that sex is part of the intimate companionship that marriage entails; among fertile couples that will lead to children in the normal run of things, but God smiles on such marital intimacy regardless of fertility.

I live in England and you know how to discuss this with me off-blog...
 
Anon@6:45pm,

You wrote in response to me:

"Paul never said, husbands, could do with their wives what they pleased."

Neither did I! We can agree about that.

Anon@6:07 p.m.
 
Anon@7.03pm, you wrote:

"The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament..."

It is defined by the meaning of the word - overseer, with authority. You can find it in the Septuagint meaning just that, before the church came into being. Now see my exegesis of how they are the same men as the presbyteroi (with which you agree), and my exegesis of how there are several in a congregation, ie a council.
 
Anon@7:07 p.m.

What you have missed entirely is context.

The Manicheans held that marriage was bad, because pro-creation was bad.

This led Augustine to refute them by arguing that pro-cration was what gave marriage on of it's great goods.

The other good's he called fidelity and companionship.

Have you actually read, Augustine on the Good of Marriage.

Augustine held that it was the inability to master one's passions that stemmed from the fall.

He did not say it was lust in the martial act that caused this, but rather was a consequence of this.

Yes, a lot of his writings have been taken out of context, by Christians and others.

But, this is not his fault.
 
Anon@7:17 p.m.

Yes, overseer is the title, but the exact functions of the overseer have not been defined.

"Now see my exegesis of how they are the same men as the presbyteroi (with which you agree)"

The titles have been used interchangeably, but the functions were different.

The functions of the presbyter have been described, but the functions of the episcopi have not been.

This does not mean that the office did not exist. It's clear from early church writings that it did.

"and my exegesis of how there are several in a congregation, ie a council."

the apostles ordained certain men, giving them authority over multiple congregations (dioceses), each with its own presbyters.

These were endowed with the power to ordain additional presbyters as needed to shepherd the flock and carry on the work of the gospel. Titus and Timothy were two of those early episcopoi and clearly were above the office of presbuteros.
 
Anon@7.41pm,

The episkopoi and the presbyteroi were the same men - I *think* we agree on that (tho I am getting a bit confused as to what you believe), but Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2 unequivocally establish that. The task of overseers is spiritual oversight, leadership - something that God does not need to specify further, for we all know what it means.

I should add that the apostolos who founded a congregation would obviously have authority whenever he revisited, and that includes Titus and Timothy, but nowhere does scripture speak of that role being handed on once the founding apostolos had gone to glory and the existence of a plurality of episkopoi/presbyteroi in a NT congregation is good enough for me to believe it should have continued.
 
Anon@7:41 p.m.


I said, the terms were used interchangeably for both, but they were not the same office.


Phil: 1-2

"Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers"

Ministers: the Greek term diakonoi is used frequently in the New Testament to designate “servants,” “attendants,” or “ministers.”

Paul refers to himself and to other apostles as “ministers of God” (2 Cor 6:4) or “ministers of Christ” (2 Cor 11:23).

In the Pastorals (1 Tm 3:8, 12) the diakonos has become an established official in the local church; hence the term is there translated as deacon.

Titus 1:5 & 1:7; talks about Titus appointing elders or in every town as directed.

* [5:1] Presbyters: the officially appointed leaders and teachers of the Christian community (cf. 1 Tm 5:17–18; Ti 1:5–8; Jas 5:14).

Who appointed them if they one and the same?

"but nowhere does scripture speak of that role being handed on once the founding apostolos had gone to glory"

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands.

Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others.
 
I thought the topic was Newt Gingrich? Why doesn't this blog's discussion board ever focus on the posted topic?
 
Would you rather have a Muslem in the WH?
 
Constance:
Video at the bottom of this page suggests how new financial order James Martinez referenced will work:

http://the2012scenario.com/2012/01/nesara-message-contained-in-james-martinez-video

http://tinyurl.com/7dwzhhc

Nkosazana
 
First Google announces it is going to track everything we do on all of its sites, google, youtube, and gmail. And today I read that google is working with the British government and scrubbing pages from search results.

http://www.infowars.com/uk-d-notices-to-go-worldwide/

UK D-Notices to Go Worldwide
 
Anonymous 7:07

I am posting this again in case you missed it.

As far as I know Augustine did not believe that sex was wrong when a wife could not get pregnant, when already pregnant or after menopause.

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
http://www.churchinhistory.org/
pages/booklets/augustine.pdf
______________________________

Long before Augustine came on the scene, the Bible's teaching was:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand athe judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

19 For as through the one man’s disobedience athe many bwere made sinners, even so through cthe obedience of the One athe many will be made righteous.

20 1aThe Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, bgrace abounded all the more,

21 so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:12-21
__________________________

Original Sin in and of itself is not anything positive. Moreover, St. Thomas Aquinas clarified Augustine's meaning about "lust transmitting original Sin to children" in the Summa when he wrote:

There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin......

.....It is not the actual lust that transmits original sin: for, supposing God were to grant to a man to feel no inordinate lust in the act of generation, he would still transmit original sin; we must understand this to be habitual lust, whereby the sensitive appetite is not kept subject to reason by the bonds of original justice. This lust is equally in all.


http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
2082.htm
________________________________

Another name for the "habitual lust" to which St. Thomas Aquinas ( and Augustine ) were referring is "concupiscence" which is a consequence of having lost original justice as a result of Original Sin. There are three such lusts named in the Bible:

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 John 2:16

The Douay-Rheims version reads:

For all that is in the world, is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world.
 
Anonymous 7:07

I already posted this earlier. I am posting it again here in case you missed it.

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
http://www.churchinhistory.org/
pages/booklets/augustine.pdf
 
"First of all, please notice how, in the quotes from Canon VII of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria above, the prohibition is not against adding to the Creed of Constantinople I (A.D. 381), but rather adding to the Creed "defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea" (A.D. 325);

and, as we already observed, the Creed of Nicaea makes no mention of the Spirit’s procession, but merely reads:

"[We believe] in the Holy Sprit …" (followed by a direct anathema against Arianism.)"

The so called Nicene Creed is more correctly called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, because here some refinements were added, such as one baptism, life of the age to come, and reference to The Holy Spirit as "who proceeds from The Father, and with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified Who spoke by the prophets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325 for comparison of original and final form.

now, if there was any belief in double procession it would have been there.
 
"Ergo, if the Son "sends" the Holy Spirit, it is because he sees the Father sending the Holy Spirit. To say that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and - or through - the Son is not to be found anywhere in the Bible is just plain wrong."

you are vonfusing action in time with action in eternity, and the Creed is about critical distinguishing points about The Persons. While there was no time when either The Son or The Holy Spirit was not, so that the spirating and begetting are so to speak ongoing from eternity, their
"origin" to use a term that sounds like action in time but it isn't meant that way here, is both from The Father, but in different ways, and independently of each other.

Their ACTIONS however are not independent of each other the doctrine of perichoresis, held by East and West, is that where any One of The Holy Trinity is, there are the other Two as well, because of their mutual and simultaneous omnipresence, would be a case of this.

proceeding (as origin) from The Father is not the same thing as being sent at a certain time through or by The Son from The Father into the Church or any other matter like speaking through the Prophets.

Jesus makes it clear that The Holy Spirit is FROM The Father, He says He will send Him FROM The Father, and also says, "Who proceeds from The Father," not "from The Father and Me."
 
addendum on the filioque, St. Photios the Great (never mind the hassles over his episcopate) wrote The Mystagogy of The Holy Spirit,

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html

In this he shows how the filioque, left to itself without caveats and adhering to existing prohibitions and anathemas about certain ideas, but left to itself and taken to all its possible deductions, opens the door to all the rejected heresies, and to even polytheism itself.

St. Photios remarks regarding such restraints applied, that although this mitigates the damage it does not eliminate the core problems.

Blandly recited without thinking about it and assuming it means whatever the biblical similarity like from The Father in eternity then through The Son in time, is probably harmless but when it is taken too seriously in its actual sense, and that the Latin sense, it is heretical.
 
Dear Susanna

Thank you for the link confirming that Augustine was against marital sex when there is no chance of conception. That would include when the wife has lost her fertility through age, and when she is pregnant. Austine can go on about mixed motives inside the couple's heads as much as he wants, that is true of all actions given the fallen human psyche, and
his position here is clearly unscriptural. Genesis 2 is clear that sex is part of the intimate companionship that marriage entails; among fertile couples that will lead to children in the normal run of things, but there is no command in the OT to refrain at those infertile times. God smiles on such marital intimacy regardless of fertility.

Anon (plus a letter)
 
Anon@8.17pm,

You keep bringing diakonoi into this; the word means servant and within the church people appointed as administrators by the presbyteroi/episkopoi, but it is these two words which we are discussing.

They were appointed in the first place by the apostolos who came to the place, preached, and started a congregation. After he had moved on they choose people from their own congregation whom they identify as having a leadership anointing. In any appointment ceremony, hands are laid on the appointee.
 
Anon@8:59 a.m.

"They were appointed in the first place by the apostolos who came to the place, preached, and started a congregation. After he had moved on they choose people from their own congregation whom they identify as having a leadership anointing. In any appointment ceremony, hands are laid on the appointee."

How do you know this?
 
Anon@8:49 a.m.

Where are your speculations found in the document that Susanna posted?

Please cite this allegation.
 
Christine,

Photius's views are rejected by many prominent Eastern church fathers.

For, St. Athanasius himself testifies that….

"Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' (Galatians 4:6)."

(Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B).

Once again, it is the eternal relationship of Persons that is being referred to. Either the Sonship of Christ is eternal or it is not. St. Athanasius clearly promoted one, eternal Sonship, and so an eternal Spirit of Sonship Who proceeds eternally from the Father ‘through the Son.’

This is precisely why the Alexandrians (just like the Latins –e.g. St. Augustine) constantly cite John 16:15 in regard to the Son’s possession of the Spirit. The Son does not possess or participate in the Spirit of Sonship in a mere temporal sense, but from all eternity; and the Spirit (as the Spirit of Sonship) receives His Personal identity from the Father ‘through the Son.’

And, even the Cappadocians recognize this Apostolic reality.

For example, St. Basil the Great writes …

"Through the Son, Who is one, He (i.e., the Holy Spirit) is joined to the Father, Who is one, and by Himself completes the Blessed Trinity." (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

What cannot be disputed here is that the Spirit, for Basil, is joined to the Father eternally and Personally through the Son. There is a Personal connection –an eternal, Personal participation of the Son. This is the reality that Filioque addresses. .

And St. Basil clarifies this even further when he writes …

"…the goodness of [the Divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the Persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the Monarchy." (ibid., 18:47).

And the same is true of the Filioque (properly understood). Again, the reference is to the eternal relationship of the Persons, with the Son having an intrinsic, Personal connection to the Spirit.

Here, St. Basil acknowledges the orthodoxy of the contemporary Alexandrian position, even though that is not the principal concern of the Cappadocians, which is of course the Father’s monarchy.
 
Likewise, St. Gregory Nazianzus says …

"…the Spirit is a middle term (meson) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten." (Discourse 31, 8).

This too addresses the same reality appreciated by the Alexandrians and the Latins, which sees the Spirit as an eternal, Personal ‘connection’ between Father and Son –the Spirit of Sonship.

Also, St. Gregory of Nyssa writes …

"The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is [further] attested that He is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him' (Romans 8:9). So the Spirit Who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son Who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed."

(Fragment in Orationem Dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

Once again, it is the eternal order that is being described here, not merely the temporal imparting of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit "of the Son" (the Spirit of Sonship) in an eternal capacity. The Spirit’s Personal identity is depended upon the Personhood of the Son.

And, St. Gregory of Nyssa also writes …

"While we confess the invariableness of the [Divine] nature we do not deny the distinction of Cause and of Caused, by which alone we perceive that one Person is distinguished from Another, in our belief that it is one thing to be the Cause and another to be From The Cause; and in That which is From The Cause, we recognize yet another distinction. It is one thing to be directly from the First Cause (i.e., the Father), and another to be through Him (i.e., the Son) Who is directly from the First, so the distinction of being Only-begotten abides undoubtedly in the Son, nor is it doubted that the Spirit is from the Father; for the middle position of the Son is protective of His distinction as Only-begotten, but does not exclude the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father." (Ep. ad. Ablabius).

Once again, it is the eternal relationship of Persons that is referred to. The Cappadocians clearly recognized an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit, which is to be understood in the sense of the Father as the Spirit’s Cause (Aition), with the Son as an intrinsic and eternal Participant in the eternal procession –a middle position (i.e., "through Him") that does not interfere with the Father’s exclusive role as Cause (Aition).

And the same theology is found in many other fathers belonging to the Antiochian sphere of influence. For example, as early as A.D. 265, and before any possible taint of "Neo-Platonism," St. Gregory the Wonder Worker produced the following Creed:

"One God, the Father of the living Word, of subsistent Wisdom and Power, and of the Eternal Image. Perfect Begetter of the Perfect, Father of the Only Begotten Son. One Lord, Only of Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of the Godhead, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehending the constitution of the universe, and Power shaping all creation. Genuine Son of Genuine Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal, and Eternal of Eternal. And one Holy Spirit, having substance of God, and Who is manifested through the Son; Image of the Son, Perfect of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of living; Holy Fountain; Sanctity, the Dispenser of Sanctification; in Whom is manifested God the Father, Who is above all and in all, and God the Son, Who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged." (Confession of Faith)
 
Cont...


Likewise, we have the witness of St. Epiphanius of Salamis, who writes … .

"For the Only-Begotten Himself calls Him [the Spirit] ‘the Spirit of the Father,’ and says of Him that ‘He proceeds from the Father,’ and ‘will receive of mine,’ so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the Father nor to the Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit Divine … of God, and He is God. For He is Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son, of the Father and of the Son, a Third by appellation. ... The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son; and neither is the Son created nor is the Spirit created." (Ankyrotos or The Man Well Anchored, A.D. 374).

Once again, an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit is recognized. And St. Epiphanius also says …

"The Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, ... proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son, not foreign to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, He is with the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit ever subsisting, Spirit Divine, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. ... He is Third in appellation, equal in Divinity, not different as compared to Father and Son, connecting Bond of the Trinity, Ratifying Seal of the Creed. (Panarion)

This is exactly the same theology found in the Alexandrians and Cappadocians above, in which an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit is recognized.

He also writes …

"No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives." (OP.. cit., xi, in P.G., XLIII, 35):


Note this was all Before Photius came along.
 
Christine,

Please note I am not opposed to Orthodoxy. It's the closest in Christianity to Western and Eastern Catholicism.

And Eastern Catholics recite the Creed the same as the Orthodox.

This is possible because we recognize that the Roman Creed and the Byzantine Creed refer to two different things. But, we likewise maintain that both these things are true and equally Apostolic. They are merely different expressions, crafted to fit two different experiences and two different needs.

The issue with the EO is that this is not in uniformity with a cultural expression, and their ethnic ties.
 
re all the posts supposedly refuting St. Photio

EXACTLY WHERE IN ANY OF THIS IS TAUGHT A PROCESSION (ORIGIN) OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM THE SON?

NOWHERE. It is all about relationship and so forth, it has NOTHING to do with double procession in eternity which is about origin/ground of being.

St. Photios also addresses the similar misuse of such statements of the fathers, by earlier filioque supporters than yourselves.

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html
 
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html
 
for some reason the link doesn't show correctly. here is the tiny url

http://tinyurl.com/7m55ygs
 
http://tinyurl.com/6nhjcw7
There are TWO councils referred to as Eighth Ecumenical Councils, BOTH explicitly condemned the filioque, incl. the second one which Pope John VIII signed. RC rejected one or both later in the 1100s, and Orthodox have tended due to ecumenical feelings to gloss them over.

Thus you have TWO POPES, Leo III and John VIII, WHO CONDEMNED THE FILIOQUE IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.
 
From Los Angeles local CBS TV station KCAL9 (01/25/12)...

LAPD And Special Forces Conduct Military Maneuvers In The Skies Above Downtown LA

Many questioned what was going on Wednesday night as a Black Hawk helicopter and four OH-6 choppers – or “Little Birds” – flew over the city, at one point hovering just above the US Bank building downtown and later flying low over the Staples Center as the Lakers played inside.

For more...
http://tinyurl.com/6suohhq
 
Anon@09.56am,

In answer, please see p12 of the essay on Augustine which Susanna cited, mentioning "Augustine's frequently expressed opinion
that married intercourse is justified only if it is intended to be procreative..." and giving references (ref no.65 of that document). That amply justifies my assertions at 8.49am which elictied your question.
 
Anon@9.46am,

The founder of a congregatin, an apostolos, had an anointing as a church planter in modern language, so once he had got a congregation started he would move on to do the same elsewhere and appoint leaders to run it in his absence. These were the episkopoi/presbyteroi, same people as we have established.

When the episkopoi died or were martyred, this council would have to keep their numbers up, and of course it would comprise people who lived locally, they didn't have Chevrolets back then. If they were Christians who lived locally then they would be members of that congregation.

QED.
 
Christine,

The RC church does not claim there is a double procession. This is a charge you have been making.

the Western Church teaches, and has always taught, that the Father, and the Father alone, is the Source, Principal, and Cause (“Aition”) of the Holy Spirit –that is, the formal proclamation of Constantinople I. Indeed, even St. Augustine, who is often made into an intellectual scapegoat among some Eastern Orthodox, clearly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “principaliter” --that is, “as Principle” (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095).


So, there is clearly no contradiction between Augustine and the Cappadocians or the Constantinopolitan fathers on this issue. Both Greek East and Latin West confess, and always have confessed, that the Father alone is the Cause (Aition) or Principle (Principium) of both the Son and the Spirit.


But, if the Western Church agrees with the East that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then what does it mean by “Filioque” –that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son”?


Very simply, and keeping in mind the West’s isolation from the original Greek-language intention of the Constantinopolitan Creed, what the West means to express is a truth that is equally valid, but distinct and parallel to, the original Greek- language intention. For, when the West speaks of the Spirit “proceeding” from the Father and the Son, it is referring to something all-together different than “procession” as from a single source (aitia).

It is not advocating two sources or principals for the Spirit, or some kind of “double spiration,” as is all-too-commonly (wrongly) assumed by many Eastern Orthodox. Rather, it is using the term “proceeds” in an all-together different sense.

And the best way to illustrate the two different senses or uses of the term “proceeds” (Greek vs. Latin) is though the following analogy:


If a human father and son go into their back yard to play a game of catch, it is the father who initiates the game of catch by throwing the ball to his son. In this sense, one can say that the game of catch “proceeds” from this human father (an “aition”); and this is the original, Greek sense of the Constantinopolitan Creed’s use of the term “proceeds” (“ekporeusis”).

However, taking this very same scenario, one can also justly say that the game of catch “proceeds” from both the father and his son. And this is because the son has to be there for the game of catch to exist. For, unless the son is there, then the father would have no one to throw the ball to; and so there would be no game of catch. And, it is in this sense (one might say a “collective” sense) that the West uses the term “proceeds” (“procedit”) in the Filioque.

Just as acknowledging the necessity of the human son’s presence in order for the game of catch to exist does not, in any way, challenge or threaten the human father’s role as the source or initiator (aition) of the game of catch, so the Filioque does not deny the Father’s singular role as the Cause (Aition) of the Spirit; but merely acknowledges the Son’s necessary Presence (i.e., participation) for the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father to Someone else – namely, to the eternal Son.


Father and Son are thus collectively identified as accounting for the Spirit’s procession. This is all that the Filioque was ever intended to address; and it was included in the Creed by the Western fathers at Toledo in order to counter the claims of the 6th Century Spanish (Germanic) Arians.

These Arians were of course denying this essential and orthodox truth –that is, the Son’s eternal participation in the Spirit’s procession –an issue which was never challenged or comprehensively addressed in the Byzantine experience, aside from the fact that there does exist throughout the writings of the Eastern fathers the profession that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “through [or ‘by way of’] the Son.” –an expression equivalent to the Filioque.
 
The historical context

Pope Leo III and John VIII, saw the Constantinople 1 as merely a regional rather an ecumenical council.

Council of Constantinople, which was not recognized in the West (or in the East) as ecumenical until about the time of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.

Rome did not approve of Canon III and its attempt to give Constantinople primacy over Alexandria and Antioch.

Sixty-nine years later, Pope St. Leo the Great (Ep. cvi in P.L., LIV, 1003, 1005) would repeat this condemnation and declare that Canon III of Constantinople I was never accepted by Rome and (like Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon) was a violation of the Nicene order (i.e., Canon VI of Nicaea).

Why is this all important?

It had nothing to do with double procession.

Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus cannot be used to argue against Filioque’s inclusion in the Western Creed.

Even after A.D. 880, both Rome and Constantinople continued to hold communion with a great many Western Churches who openly professed the Creed with the Filioque.

If the decree of 880 represented anything more than a ‘social contract’ between Constantinople and Rome itself , then Rome would have been forced to excommunicate the entire West, and Byzantinum would certainly have pressed for this excommunication. This obviously did not happen, however.

It is also helpful to realize that the ancient Church, both before and after A.D. 431 (and A.D. 880), always possessed several different liturgical creeds.

Thus, looking at authentic history, one is forced to admit that there never was only one, “official Creed” for the universal Church.
 
Anon@1:49 p.m.

Why should Augustine say this?

Because Christians, in his estimation, should never become so preoccupied with the sexual experience as to ignore either the procreative purpose of intercourse, or the unitive purpose of intercourse.

Augustine is simply making an assertion that marital sex is both unitive and procreative, and therefore the procreative aspects cannot be separated from the unitive aspects.

It says nothing about whether or not sexual intercourse can take place during infertile periods.
 
Anon@9:46 a.m.

"The founder of a congregatin, an apostolos, had an anointing as a church planter in modern language, so once he had got a congregation started he would move on to do the same elsewhere and appoint leaders to run it in his absence."

These leaders were priests. The early church was unanimous in it's agreement on this.

"These were the episkopoi/presbyteroi, same people as we have established."

We did not established this.

My assertion was that they were two different functions, even though the titles were sometimes used interchangeably such as youth minister, music minister etc.

"When the episkopoi died or were martyred, this council would have to keep their numbers up, and of course it would comprise people who lived locally, they didn't have Chevrolets back then."

Yes, they didn't have Chevrolet's but historians estimate that there were more than 30 million Christians by the 4th century in an empire of 60 million people.

Christianity grew so fast, that they could not confine themselves to just local churches, and hence a Bishop became in charge of many congregations.
 
I guess the comments have gone on so long on the sexual teachings of the early fathers that my comments on Gingrich and related matters have disappeared. Concerning Gingrich, polls show that women are now rejecting him in droves while men still approve...that's a poll for today, and it will change rapidly, no doubt, as everything does now.
Most Talking Heads stated that Santorum won the debate but hadn't enough money to fight against the wealthy two. However, his Pac does have a wealthy contributor today.
 
Anon@2.58pm,

False! Here a reference is given to Augustine stating that it IS wrong for a married couple to have sex unless they believe conception is possible, and that they should not have sex while the woman is pregnant or after she has undergone menopause:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hpGMsOM27FgC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=sex+after+menopause+augustine&source=bl&ots=64DaZLAoGn&sig=ciypfwvDiMHti8u1Wp5aMSWp2rg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oSAjT7qMKciUOsq-9L4I&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=sex%20after%20menopause%20augustine&f=false

The immediately preceding section of this book states that the church took the same view for many centuries. To go back in this thread, this is the influence of Greek asceticism. The Hebraic view, based on Genesis 2, is otherwise.
 
"These leaders were priests. The early church was unanimous in it's agreement on this."

Sure they were. So were the rest of the congregation. See Rev 1:6 and 1 Peter 2:9. What you won't be able to prove from the NT is that they were ordained and the rest of the congregation weren't.

Every time you blandly ignore my demonstration that the episkopoi and the presbyteroi were the same people in a congregation, according to Acts 20:17 & 20:28; Titus 1:5 & 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 & 5:2; and that there were several of them per congregation, according to James 5:14 and Acts 14:23 & 20:17, I shall be glad to requote these verses so that Constance's readers can verify these facts for themselves.

Things changed from the structure set out in the scriptures very quickly, so that soon there was only one episkopos per congregation; and a few centuries later many congregations were under one episkopos in a total reversal of the scriptural relationship. What nobody has yet answered is: By what authority were changes made to the way set out in the church's own scriptures?
 
Anon@ 5:18 p.m.

You are wrong again!

Augustine was referring to the periodic abstinence practised by the Manicheans, who used the infertile period to have sex, because they believed pro-creation was wrong.

Chapter 18.—Of the Symbol of the Breast, and of the Shameful Mysteries of the Manichæans.

"Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? "

"Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented
to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.v.xx.html

Please read this chapter.
 
"The immediately preceding section of this book states that the church took the same view for many centuries."

Not if you read Aquinas.

"St. Thomas basically takes the same position, though he notes that one spouse ought to have marital intercourse not only when the other spouse explicitly expresses a desire for it, but implicitly shows that he or she wants it. (In IV Sent., dist. 32, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 1)

Moreover, he says that intercourse which happens to be sterile (as opposed to intercourse intentionally sterile) is not a sin, and this includes not only cases where the spouses do not know that the intercourse is sterile, but also the cases where they know it (Summa Contra Gentiles 3, 122).
 
Further more just be careful about the sources you read, because there's a big rush to argue that marriage does not have to include pro-creation to justify homosexuality in the Christian community.
 
Anonymous 8:49 AM & 1:49 PM

What Augustine has actually said is that while procreation is the primary purpose of marital sex, it is not the only purpose. The secondary purpose is its unitive purpose.

Even when a woman is past menopause and procreation is unlikely, as long as the conjugal act is open to its procreative purpose, ( i.e. nothing is done to prevent conception ) the conjugal act is justified along with any pleasure that may accompany it.

It is also to be pointed out that people are often so used to thinking in terms of contraception that they sometimes fail to consider that the obsessive desire to have a child can also be disordered.

In the Old Testament, for example, we have Sarah's scheming which involved her arranging for Abraham to procreate with her maidservant Hagar instead of waiting for God to fulfill His promise in his own good way in His own good time.

Fast-forwarding to our own time, in vitro fertilization is contrary to Catholic teaching precisely because procreation is disconnected from the loving unitive aspect of marital sex and the resulting child is more like a "product" than a gift of God.

It is in his work MARRIAGE AND CONCUPISCENCE, where Augustine says that as long as marital sex is OPEN to procreation and nothing is done to prevent it ( i.e. artificial contraception, abortion, etc. ) marital sex is justified.

I was fortunately able to find an online copy. In this treatise, St. Augustine very frequently quotes St. Paul.

De Nuptis et Concupiscentia ( On Marriage and Concupiscence ) BOOK 1

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
____________________________

De Nuptis et Concupiscentia ( On Marriage and Concupiscence ) BOOK 2

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15072.htm
____________________________
 
Mariel 4:35

Sorry. I shouldn't have allowed myself to wander off topic.

I am not going to say any more here on the teachings of the early fathers on sexuality.
 
Anon@ 5:29 p.m.

" What you won't be able to prove from the NT is that they were ordained and the rest of the congregation weren't."

They were ordained by the laying on of hands (1 Tm 4:14, 5:22),

This is what happens in any ordination.

"By what authority were changes made to the way set out in the church's own scriptures?"

The church was still debating the canon of scripture and did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura, since the church existed before the New Testament canon.

By 100 A.D. there was already a church with Bishop, priest and deacon.

The canon was not finalized.
 
Mariel, my intention is to make it up to you by putting your post front and center here. :-)

Mariel said...

Constance, I "voted" for Rick Santorum even before his excellent performance at the CNN debate Thursday, by sending him a donation, a big enough one to get the "sweater vest" even though I may not wear it. My rational mind told me I should not "waste" money on a politician, since they are all imperfect and temporary, but my heart told me I MUST participate in the effort to elect a Christian president.

Now Newt has a right to call himself Christian. I think we should, until proven otherwise, accept the moniker a candidate gives himself, and it's possible Newt's conversion to Catholicism and renewal of interest in Christ is a good sign that he had changed.

However, I think Santorum has the better part.
He intends to take his candidacy further and I pray he wins, just to cheer up the Christian world. Even though I hope he and Newt and all who declare themselves Christians will be raptured before anyone takes office again.

Thinking about Rick and his family made me realize that my Catholic "part" is very strong still, even though I can't find an expression in any parish in my vicinity.

3:00 AM
 
Mariel said...

In response, it does appear that God has left us to unsound government, and perhaps trying to get sounder government is folly, in that case. We always remember His admonition, though, "Occupy until I come."

I doubt if Santorum is a hypocrite. What may be true of him, as of all of us, is that we fail to understand where we are at fault while we are committing our fault. Eventually, with God's grace, we realize where we erred.

That said, it is probably impossible for a political leader to be perfect in all things. It is just too complex, trying to listen to and respond to so many and varied people. We will not get a perfect leader even if God's mercy allows us a better one.

I don't expect we Christians will be here many more years, so it may be moot, but, again "Occupy till He comes."

9:18 PM
_________________


Mariel said...
P.S. What is a "statist"? I have not heard this word.

9:21 PM
_________________

Mariel said...

Constance I just came back to this blog roll after being away a few days, and see that you have posted some interesting comments on Newt's culpability. While I do say he's got a right to accept Christ, as all sinners do, I do agree with you that he is NOT a proper candidate for President. He and Romney seem to be neck and neck and Santorum is going home for the weekend (not going to be in Fla for the vote) as it's winner-take-all in Florida, and he (Santorum) wishes to do his taxes and raise funds for the next fight.

You should read the horrible things said about Santorum on Huffington Post. I do not know why I go there other than my son put it on easy-access sites at the top of the page. I do enjoy baiting them some times; I guess I have become what they call a "troll" and will have to exit to maintain my own dignity and sanity. But I do think Santorum has a lot of guts to face up to a;; this. At least he has a family to go home to. Some of us are utterly alone as Christians. What do we do when we are without a human family for support, oh ye supports of "faith and family."
My son continues his barrage of hate against the faith. I'm so tired of it. Just want to go to my real home.
Anyway, thanks for the dirt on Gingrich. He is a loony and if elected he will be a loony president.

11:33 PM

_________________
 
Anon@6.15pm,

That laying-on of hands is part of consecrating them as episkopoi/presbyteroi, NOT as priests, which they already were according to St Peter himself, see 1 Pe 2:9.

The canon might not have been formally declared but Christians accepted as scripture all of the works from which I have quoted in this discussion, which is all that is necessary for this purpose.
 
"That laying-on of hands is part of consecrating them as episkopoi/presbyteroi, NOT as priests, which they already were according to St Peter himself, see 1 Pe 2:9."

There is a priesthood of believers (people in the pews) and a ministerial priesthood that serves them.

Jesus wants us to understand the New Covenant in relation to the Old Covenant.

Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Mat 5:17).

At the last supper Jesus served bread and wine (the first Mass) just as Melchizedek had done with Abraham (Gen 14:18).

He said to the disciples "this is the New Covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20), signifying, among other things, God's transfer of Priestly duties from the Levites to Jesus who was the "true priest with the others [disciples] being only his ministers"(Hebr. 8.4).

That night Jesus washed their feet and taught them to be servants in their new ministry. He said "I have set you an example, that you should do as I have

It is directly because of the commission at the Last Supper on the Apostles, who laid hands on Bishops who laid hands on priests who were appointed bishops who laid hands on priests etc...,

In the Old Testament we see prophets passing on power to their successors by the laying on of hands and anointing. For example:

Joshua son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands on him (Deut 31:1-8)

You [Elijah] shall anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place (1 Kg 19:16)

.Samuel took a horn of oil, and anointed him in the presence of his brothers and then spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward. (1 Sam 16:13)

In the New Testament

[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim. 2:2).

First Generation: "me" = Paul, "an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Saviour and of Jesus Christ our hope" (1 Tim 1:1)

Second Generation: "you" = Timothy, who was most likely ordained by Paul: "Do not neglect the gift you have which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate." (1 Tim 4:14)

"For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands." (2 Tim 1:6)

Third Generation: "faithful men" = successors who will receive this "imposition of hands" after Timothy.

"The canon might not have been formally declared but Christians accepted as scripture all of the works from which I have quoted in this discussion, which is all that is necessary for this purpose."

You would have to provide me with historical evidence by the Christians who lived at that time, to prove that they accepted the whole canon of the New Testament.

A book cannot prove a book, before it came into existence.
 
Mariel said...

I guess the comments have gone on so long on the sexual teachings of the early fathers that my comments on Gingrich and related matters have disappeared. Concerning Gingrich, polls show that women are now rejecting him in droves while men still approve...that's a poll for today, and it will change rapidly, no doubt, as everything does now.
Most Talking Heads stated that Santorum won the debate but hadn't enough money to fight against the wealthy two. However, his Pac does have a wealthy contributor today.
 
Mariel,

The word in the streets is that there may be a brokered Republican convention.

BROKERED CONVENTION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Brokered_convention
__________________________

GOP CONVENTION HAS 50-50 CHANCE OF BEING OPEN ( Brokered )

http://www.huffingtonpost.com
/2012/01/21/republican-convention
-mitt-romney-south-carolina
-primary_n_1221350.html
 
Anon@5.38pm,

Here is an English translation of Augustine's Against Julian, from book 3, chapter 21, subsection 43. In it he is commending "conjugal chastity" as against "carnal concupiscence", both within the context of marriage.

"If this conjugal chastity possesses such great power and is so great gift from God that it does what the matrimonial code prescribes, it combats in even more valiant fashion in regard to the act of conjugal union, lest there be indulgence beyond what suffices for the generating of offspring. Such chastity abstains during menstruation and pregnancy, nor has it union with one no longer able to conceive on account of age..."

Read it for yourself at

http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Against_Julian_The_Fathers_of_the_Church.html?id=lxED1d6DAXoC&redir_esc=y

I trsut this suffices to show that Augustine DOES disapprove of sex during pregnancy and after menopause - just as I said, and dead against Genesis 2, which makes clear that sex is part of the intimate companionship that marriage entails. Among fertile couples that will lead to children in the normal run of things, but God smiles on such marital intimacy regardless of fertility.
 
interesting link about the brokered convention, I didn't know such existed. Generally I am more on theory and high profile individuals, not details. A flaw perhaps. But I got so sick of everyone that I did not vote the last election except for the state and local stuff. I am not surprised that GOP might be brokered.

You have to realize, though, that there is no salvation for the country in either party. The third parties don't look too good either. The best you can do is ask, in a given situation, who will do the most good and the least harm, because with the possible exception of Ron Paul, they are all bought and paid for.

The old saying, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, is not quite correct.

Another position, which I and a rather different blogger came to independently, is that the corrupt seek power. Period.

Even if not bought and paid for, there is likely a spiritual problem.
 
I wrote: "That laying-on of hands is part of consecrating them as episkopoi/presbyteroi, NOT as priests, which they already were according to St Peter himself, see 1 Pe 2:9."

You replied: "There is a priesthood of believers (people in the pews) and a ministerial priesthood that serves them."

Read the liturgy by which people are ordained in your church. You will find (if you are RC, Orthodox or Episcopalian) that it simply "consecrates them as a priest" with no distinction made of the sort you speak of.

Your argument that the canon was not closed is wayward. The canon is never closed at a time when scripture is being given - by definition! If this were a valid argument then it could be used to render all scripture unauthoritative (not just the verses I quote against you...)
 
"You would have to provide me with historical evidence by the Christians who lived at that time, to prove that they accepted the whole canon of the New Testament."

Go read the Ante ?Nicene Fathers especially Irenaeus Against Heresies, he uses all the books we use c. AD 180 and none other, and denounces as false all books other than those accepted in the churches especially those whose teaching and consecrations originate with an Apostle not a missionary. The canon consisted of what was received from The Apostles.
 
Anon@4:50 a.m.

If you are going to be this exact, you should know that the baptism prayers also make one a priest.

We are just going with what Jesus established.
 
Christine,

The poster above is not interested in anything that is not found word by word in the Bible.
 
I left out confirmation too. The prayers in both baptism and confirmation make one a priest.

In the Old Testament the Jewish people were priests, but also had a levitical priesthood.
 
Anon@9:40 a.m.

Further, more the distinction is already being made because Holy Orders is a sacrament on it's own.

We are all priests, but not all of us become " ordained " priests.
 
Christine,

The argument being made is that the church went away from the established structure of the "exact" title and office applied to priests/bishops in the NT.

And very soon.
 
My personal belief is that it comes down, as Romans 2 puts it, to those who love God and are trying to please Him. HOWEVER, I also personally believe that the NICENE CREED contains the essential elements of our Christian faith.

Constance
 
Anon@7:16 p.m.

Augustine's context applied to a specific situation that address lust in a marriage. Augustine argues that the chaste spouse determines their intentions behind something and if they find their intentions not sound, they abstain during such times, even if intercourse is permitted during those times.

In other words, they place their spouse before them.

This was in response to the Pelagian claim that there is no selfishness in sexual acts.

This becomes obvious when one reads the whole of book 3, which thanks to you I read!

There are also two narratives of Genesis.

The first narrative is clearly procreative in emphasis, and presents the power of procreation as a divine blessing: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gn 1:27-28).

The second narrative emphasizes rather the unitive aspect of marriage: "'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him'... [So God fashioned the woman and brought him to the man]. Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man'. Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gn 2:18,23-24).

This dual narrative of the one institution is of inestimable importance in showing the complementarity (and not the opposition) between the two ends of matrimony.

You brought up Genesis 2, but left out Genesis 1.
 
yes, sex is a mode of reproduction and there are other modes. But "be fruitful and multiply" is an empowering statement of blessing, just like a contrary "may you be sterile! until your owners repent and may the rain not fall until the people repent!" might have been said by God to fulfill the warnings He gave Israel about failure of flocks and farmland if they sinned.

The animals, and indeed people, DO NOT KNOW sex causes babies. They and we only know what we feel (triggered by various things like smells, behaviors etc. in animals and birds and hormonal patterns triggered by seasons). Someone figured it out and explained it.

As for concupiscence, what someone described as rapturous love in marriage or something like thaqt is precisely what Augustine considered as part of concupiscence, apparently concupiscence is anything other than erection by act of will (deliberate determination) and lubrication and relaxation of the vagina by anything but act of will and orgasm would be part of concupiscence. In all this of course he was wrong. Probably Manichean baggage.

The idea that reproductive intention alone sex is not exploitive, is ruled out by the phenomenon of forced arranged marriages, which is practically rape, Luther's attitude of so what if a woman dies in childbirth, and so forth.

The focus of the couple is to be their relationship. In Malachi men are warned that God made the two one IN ORDER TO GET A GODLY SEED, and then says, THEREFORE do not be disloyal "to the companion of your youth." seems these men had dumped their wives for younger and foreign women, and the wives were praying and being heard by God, while the prayers of the men were NOT being heard.

The levirate marriage was limited by The LAw to only that brother (term can incl. half brother and first cousin) who was living with the couple when the woman became a widow. Subsequent pagan fleshly values oriented around family line and begetting and being a mother and so forth took over and the people by the time of the Judges and Ruth considered any male relative had a claim, though it was originally depicted as the woman having a claim on the nearest male. The Law allowed him to refuse.

the Levirate and the whole repro sesx scene is rebuked by two cautionary tales (I am not saying they didn't happen, but they were recorded for our instruction as Paul says). The rape by deception and maybe drugs as well as the wine, of despondent Lot by his daughters, who were upset that no related men were left, and the constructive incest by Tamar of Judah, his daugher in law. Incest being a particularly horrific sin in the eyes of all peoples, though the definition of it varied, but always included parent to child, adult or otherwise, as horrific.

The context in which the child grows up has a lot to do with how godly that kid will be. A heartless exploitive and externals only kept type "believer" is like "a child of hell" as Jesus said of the Pharisees who would go to the ends of the earth to make one convert "and make him twofold the child of hell that you are."

These two narratives are not in conflict, Genesis 1 and 2, but the overview Genesis 1 gives place to the detailed Genesis 2.

(and for those who argue that marijuana is the herb of the field, note the fall in Genesis 3. A lot of people thinking everything can be done "naturally" or if "natural" is good, ignore that much that is assumed natural because commonplace is not really natural because is after the Fall and the curses that came because of that. I throw this in as an aside perhaps you here can use this argument against such when you hear it. But the issue of one narrative being ignored reminded me of this.)
 
Christine,

It's true that Genesis 1 does not argue for reproduction at any cost.

But it also does not argue for Genesis 2 at any cost.

Both have to be in harmony with the will of God.
 
Anon regarding historical context, doesn't matter, John VIII signed off on the council, and if he considered it merely regional and outside his jurisdiction why would he be involved? those councils are counted as Ecumenical in the RC lists.

(RC is good at contradicting itself.)

POPE LEO II FORBADE THE FILIOQUE TO BE USED IN THE MASS,

AND PUT UP SILVER SHIELDS WITH THE NICENE-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED WITHOUT THE FILIOQUE. not excommunicating everyone was an obvioius choice to try to lead them back out of error, and besides it is alleged he personally believed the filioque, BUT CONSIDERED HE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION, THIS WAS FOR ALL THE PATRIARCHS AND BISHOPS OR REPRESENTATIVES TO AFFIRM TO REJECT IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

Papal supremacy and infallibility were still alien concepts. Infallibility lay with the larger body of bishops in synod.

Rome had a big reputation because during the great strifes, only one pope Honorius excommunicated by the other bishops in an ecumenical couincil (which was later accepted on the list of such by RC) no one on the Roman see had fallen.

Then Rome fell into pride.

The excommunication Humbert as the Roman legate did was not even legitimate, politics controlled however later on.

ROME IS IN SCHISM, ALWAYS HAS BEEN FROM THAT DAY ON. Local elements often ignored this in charity, and also as one writer put it, it was nothing unusual for some minor feuding to go on but finally it sunk in, probably with pushing from later popes, that they were to run separate from the REAL undivided Church and go their own way, PRETENDING to be the True Church.

Now, if you are personally devoted to Christ you are in Him to some extent regardless of what organization you are in, and if a better church more representative of Him is available He will lead you to it.

But as far as some special status as sole or primary bearer of The Holy Spirit and life of Christ is concerned, Rome is not it, though its Holy Water will do and its exorcists with a lot of struggle can do the job, and given the Eucharistic Miracles that have occurred, Christ's Body and Blood are apparently still to be found on Roman altars.

But a quenching of The Holy Spirit has occurred. The fullness of the faith is in the Orthodox Churches,
and probably almost so in the "uniate" churches.

Where you can say there is a "fullness," of necessity you must (contrary to some of my fellow Orthodox's opinions) say there exists a partialness somewhere else, as distinct from full absence.

As for no salvation outside the church, how is one in the Body of Christ? By adhering to Him.

Back to the evangelical saw, that being in a church does not make you automatically a Christian just like being in a garage does not make you a car.
 
"If you are going to be this exact, you should know that the baptism prayers also make one a priest."

yes, it was explained to me by the priest where I first joined Orthodoxy, that the laity are priests of a sort, there are layers of priesthood, and we are at the bottom so to speak though he didn't phrase it that way, but we have a priestly role, in praise, in prayer, in blessing of each other, objects, non human life forms, and unbelievers, evangelism, etc.
 
Anon@11.36am,

Context can only excuse so much. In view of what Augustine wrote against Julian, do you believe that Augustine would in any circumstance have been happy to hear of a married couple having sex when they knew the woman was pregnant or when she was past childbearing age? Whatever else you may say, please include a clear Yes or No in your reply.
 
"The poster above is not interested in anything that is not found word by word in the Bible."

I am the poster in question. That is an ironic comment given that I am a scientist and the laws of physics, ordained by God and which I delight to study, are not in the Bible.

What I am not interested in (except to repudiate) is anything that is INCONSISTENT with the Bible.

Alpha: "In our church system we ordain our priests."

Beta: "St Peter and St John (in Rev 1:6) explain that all Christians are priests."

Alpha: "There is a universal priesthood and a ministering priesthood."

Beta: "Why then does your liturgy of ordination merely consecrate the ordinand "as a priest"?"

Alpha: "It is understood throughout our church that the kind of priesthood involved in ordination is different from the universal priesthood".

Beta: "Then why doesn't your liturgy of ordination say so, in order to aid understanding? And why is it that whenever I ask a regular, unordained member of your congregation simply if he is a priest, he just says No he is not?"

Alpha: "Our clergy are not responsible for the ignorance of our laity. People can read it up if they wish."

Beta: "You say your ordained clergy are not responsible. But have you EVER been in a service in your denomination in which the ordained preacher pro-actively explained all of this to the audience, including why the liturgy of ordination just said that the man becomes a priest?"

Alpha: "Um..."
 
Augustine in a nutshell seems to be saying that married couples have mixed motives for having sex, some good, some bad, therefore better not and it is grudgingly acceptable only for the purpose of procreation without which the human race would die out.

But the fallen psyche has mixed motives for everything it does. Why single out sex? For the answer this question, read Augustine on his own battle against his own lust. Then the answer to that question becomes clearer.

Because of his own personal problems and his influence within the church, this man did a great deal to burden with guilt the marital sex lives of half a continent for a thousand years. I wouldn't want that charge held against me.

And no, I am not saying that whatever husband and wife do in the bedroom is OK simply because they are married. All they need to do is avoid sex during the woman's period (a command in Mosaic Law which "abstain from blood" in Acts 15 fairly clearly includes), and heed St Paul's advice in 1 Cor 7: "Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again..." That is all.
 
Christine,

"John VIII signed off on the council, and if he considered it merely regional and outside his jurisdiction why would he be involved?"

Photius himself confirmed that Rome approved it as a regional council.

Photius (Mansi, III, 596), Rome apparently approved and ratified the dogmatic decrees of Constantinople I (as a mere regional council),

Why would he be involved?

This is a question, you have to ask yourself. Rome obviously had more authority than you claim.

Canon 21 of the same council.

21

We believe that the saying of the Lord that Christ addressed to his holy apostles and disciples, Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever despises you despises me, was also addressed to all who were likewise made supreme pontiffs and chief pastors in succession to them in the catholic church. Therefore we declare that no secular powers should treat with disrespect any of those who hold the office of patriarch or seek to move them from their high positions, but rather they should esteem them as worthy of all honour and reverence. This applies in the first place to the most holy pope of old Rome, secondly to the patriarch of Constantinople, and then to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Furthermore, nobody else should compose or edit writings or tracts against the most holy pope of old Rome, on the pretext of making incriminating charges, as Photius did recently and Dioscorus a long time ago. Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

Have you read all the canons of this council?

The Council itself denies Constantinople the status of a Christian patriarchate, after it tried to place itself above the other three, in violation of Canon 6.

At the Council of Chalcedon make another attempt to declare the Bishop of Constantinople second in status after the Pope of Rome.

However, this innovation, known as Canon 28, is unilaterally rejected by Pope Leo, and struck from the canons of the Council (in both East and West) by Papal decree.

Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo to apologize for the attempted innovation.

Constantinople was however later accepted as the Patriarch by the Pope, when Alexandria and Antioch was reduced to a minority under Muslim rule.

How could all this be done without an authority and was it accepted by the others?

Pope Leo only forbade it's use because of the Emperor Charlemagne’s pressure to include the “Filioque clause” in the Nicene Creed, so as not to alienate the East, because they did not like Charlemagne.

He did out of respect for this brother Bishops.

Rome never declared Honorius a formal heretic, but charged him with negligence for “assisting in the base assertions of the heretics.”

"The fullness of the faith is in the Orthodox Churches"

Why is the Russian Orthodox church not in union with the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia?

Why is the Orthodox church not in union with the Assyrians and the Orientals?

Both Eastern and Western Catholics are in union with the Bishop of Rome.

We accept all your theology, and accept you as a sister church. This is why Orthodox can receive communion in the Catholic Church.

"As for no salvation outside the church, how is one in the Body of Christ? "

Other Christians are still seen as being part of the mystical body of Christ and can be saved because they have retained elements of the truth such as the Creed etc.

The church simply claims that there is only ONE church, and not thousands.
 
Anon@11:36 a.m.

"do you believe that Augustine would in any circumstance have been happy to hear of a married couple having sex when they knew the woman was pregnant or when she was past childbearing age?"

Yes, because Augustine himself said that marital intercourse as along as it did not block conception on purpose was valid.
 
Anon@12:39 p.m.

"But have you EVER been in a service in your denomination in which the ordained preacher pro-actively explained all of this to the audience, including why the liturgy of ordination just said that the man becomes a priest?""

One does not become a priest, but is consecrated one.

Prayer said at Consecration.

"Come to our help, Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God; you are the source of every honor and dignity, of all progress and stability. You watch over the growing family of man by your gift of wisdom and your pattern of order. When you had appointed high priests to rule your people, you chose other men next to them in rank and dignity to be with them and to help them in their task; and so there grew up the ranks of priests and the offices of levites, established by sacred rites."

In the desert you extended the spirit of Moses to seventy wise men who helped him to rule the great company of his people. You shared among the sons of Aaron the fullness of their father's power, to provide worthy priests in sufficient number for the increasing rites of sacrifice and worship. With the same loving care you gave companions to your Son's apostles to help in teaching the faith: they preached the gospel to the whole world.

Lord, grant also to us such fellow workers, for we are weak and our need is greater.

Almighty Father, grant to this servant of yours the dignity of the priesthood. Renew within him the Spirit of holiness. As a co-worker with the order of bishops may he be faithful to the ministry that he receives from you, Lord God, and be to others a model of right conduct. May he be faithful in working with the order of bishops, so that the words of the Gospel may reach the ends of the earth, and the family of nations, made one in Christ, may become God's one, holy people. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. R. Amen.

It's obvious from this prayer that sacrificial/ministerial priesthood is separate from that of the common priesthood.
 
Anon@12:55 p.m.

"But the fallen psyche has mixed motives for everything it does. Why single out sex?"

He did not. He was merely responding to charges made by both Manicheans and Pelagians and their arguments on these issues.

I do agree about his own struggles.

"Because of his own personal problems and his influence within the church, this man did a great deal to burden with guilt the marital sex lives of half a continent for a thousand years. I wouldn't want that charge held against me."

This is absolute nonsense.

I think you fell this way, since your own perception of lust as normal has been shaped by the culture around you.

You blame Augustine rather than admit you are far from perfect.
 
"It's obvious from this prayer [of consecration in the rite of ordination] that sacrificial/ministerial priesthood is separate from that of the common priesthood."

Yes, but there is no such distinction in the apostolic church whose sacred traditions are recorded in its own scriptures. There is distinction between presbyteroi/episkopoi, diakonoi, and the rest of the congregation, but all are priests. Your denomination today orders things differently. By what authority were the changes made?
 
"Yes, but there is no such distinction in the apostolic church whose sacred traditions are recorded in its own scriptures."

I explained that the NT has to be understood in relation to the Old.

If there was a high Priest, Priest, and Levite in the Old, along with the common priesthood of believers.

Why would it not continue?

Why did the early church continue this?
 
The Augustine debate also touches upon a greater debate on Christianity itself.

In the OT, Israel was always God's bride.

In the NT, the church is the bride of Christ.

For example, if marriage and sexual love is supposed to be a reflection of God's own passionate love for us as seen by so many people.

Then it has to reflect these divine characteristics.

To distort it would be too distort the relationship between God and humanity itself.
 
Anon@2.27pm,

You wrote (of me): "You blame Augustine rather than admit you are far from perfect."

Excuse me, I am holding Augustine against Genesis 2, not against myself. Don't you realise how ridiculous it is to make suggestions about the personal life of somebody about whom you know nothing? It so happens that I have never been married and, by grace of God and sinner though I be in various ways, I have not had sex since I became a Christian. If I marry, I will do what God says, not what St Augustine says, for the two clearly differ. It never seems to have occurred to him that oftentimes a couple wish to have sex because they love each other. He talks about lust and chastity (which in the marital context means purity, not abstinence), but he NEVER TALKS ABOUT LOVE. It is depressing reading.

The former alcoholic in a congregation would probably prefer it if Christians never drank. That is what Augustine is like about sex, certainly sex after menopause. But you don't want the alcoholic to decide the issue for the entire congregation, do you, given that Jesus drank wine (obviously in moderation)?


And to Anon@2.04pm on the same subject,

Augustine wrote, in a passage commending "conjugal chastity" (purity) as against "carnal concupiscence" within marriage, these words ("Against Julian", full ref on this thread above):

"If this conjugal chastity possesses such great power and is so great gift from God that it does what the matrimonial code prescribes, it combats in even more valiant fashion in regard to the act of conjugal union, lest there be indulgence beyond what suffices for the generating of offspring. Such chastity abstains during menstruation and pregnancy, nor has it union with one no longer able to conceive on account of age..."

Despite this passage you claim that Augustine regarded marital sex when the woman was pregnant or beyond childbearing age as acceptable. Your reason is the context of the words. But context very rarely reverses the meaning of a sentence, and certainly not in this case. ("Sorry buddy, I thought that "Thou shalt not kill" as a command to Israelites meant that I should kill everyone else, tell you what, you pull my knife out of your side and I'll run you to the hospital...") Augustine is arguing here against a legitimate freedom that God grants to married couples. Given his influence in the church it is just as well that mediaeval priests, all celibate of course, did not snoop on bedrooms.
 
"If there was a high Priest, Priest, and Levite in the Old, along with the common priesthood of believers... Why would it not continue?"

For the same reason that Christians are not meant to take lambs to Jerusalem for sacrifice. Law of Moses is obsolete since the crucifixion.
 
Anon@3:18 p.m.

"but he NEVER TALKS ABOUT LOVE. It is depressing reading."

The whole point of Augustine's argument is that marital intercourse should not be self-directed but altruistic. It should express a selfless love directed to another person beyond the individual married spouse.

Augustine who wrote:

"Too late, have I loved Thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, too late have I loved Thee! Thou wast with me, and I was not with Thee; I was abroad, running after those beauties which Thou hast made; those things which could have no being but in Thee kept me away from Thee. Thou hast called, Thou hast cried out, and hast pierced my deafness. Thou hast enlightened, Thou hast shone forth, and my blindness is dispelled. I have tasted Thee, and am hungry of Thee. Thou hast touched me, and I am afire with the desire of thy embraces."

And also:

"Our hearts, O Lord, were made for you, and they are restless until the rest in you."

Context is important, because though shall not kill can be taken out of context in those passages in the Bible, where God actually asks people kill someone.

Every single thing every single church father says is not doctrine or mandatory or considered additional scripture BTW.
 
Anon@3:23 p.m.

I agree that these things were pointing to the eternal Messiah.

However, Jesus was not calling for a break, but a continuation through him. He did not want to rip out 1500 pages of the Bible.

Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill" (Mat 5:17).

He said to the disciples "this is the New Covenant in my blood" (Lk 22:20), signifying, among other things, God's transfer of Priestly duties from the Levites to Jesus who was the "true priest with the others [disciples] being only his ministers" Hebr. 8.4).

The thing here is that we have different interpretations of scripture.
 
Anon@6.44pm,

Augustine lamenting to God is about agape-love; I was talking about eros-love between a married couple.

He mentions lust, conception, purity in the act of (marital) sex, but *never* love. You may prefer not to infer anything from that absence, or make excuses for it, but I think it is significant.
 
Anon@7:p.m

Rather than separate the two. Augustine combines eros with agape, since sexual love is seen as a participation in the love of God.

Christians on one hand accept that marriage reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church,

On the other think, God cannot be associated with romance.

The songs of songs use eros as an allegory for the love of God.
 
Anon@7 p.m.

In churches that have sacraments, all sacraments are seen as the participation in the spousal love of God, because the church is the bride of Christ.

1617 The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath. which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant.
 
"Every single thing every single church father says is not doctrine or mandatory or considered additional scripture BTW."

correct. St. Photios The Great notesw that even if in some moment of slack speech or human imperfection of understanding, a Church Father had written something resembling double procession of The Holy Spirit, since it is against Scripture and St. Paul he quotes on rejecting any other gospel than the one St. Paul had already preached, even if he or an angel (apparently) from God were to do so it must be rejected, such would be something to ignore not take up oin support of this innovation of the filioque.

This is something the modern "patristic consciousness" crowd in Orthodoxy would do well to consider.

There is also in the Synaxis of Anathemas a statement about the words of The Fathers are to be accepted insofar as they don't disagree with Scripture.
 
Anon@7.18pm,

The Song of Songs can indeed be taken as an allegory of the love between Christ and His church, and the situation on which the allegory is based is obviously (marital) foreplay. That the woman "opened for her lover" is clearly a deliberate ambiguity, and her comparison of his midparts to ivory brings to mind the question: what part of a man's midbody in a situation like this looks like natural ivory, ie an elephant's tusk?

If Augustine wrote about the Song of Songs then I'll bet he spoke entirely about the allegory and kept well clear of the literal description. But God chose to put this description of man and wife in His word and we should not be ashamed of it.

Augustine did refer, with some disgust, to the bodily movements that man and wife make in the conjugal act. God wonderfully designed sex such that those movements bring pleasure to BOTH parties. Augustine would have a man during the act of conjugal love think to himself: "If I next make THAT movement, is it justified in the amount of pleasure it will bring to my wife relative to the amount of pleasure it will bring me?" That is unrealistic, and unintended by God.

When the church in some parts of the Roman Empire took Augustine's views on board, it either induced needless guilt in married couples, or it led to them quietly thinking that the church was wrong, thereby diminishing its spiritual authority.
 
Anon@3:52 a.m.

"Augustine would have a man during the act of conjugal love think to himself: "If I next make THAT movement, is it justified in the amount of pleasure it will bring to my wife relative to the amount of pleasure it will bring me?" That is unrealistic, and unintended by God."

The point is that even today, men generally place their pleasure above that of women. Since they achieve orgasm faster than women, they don't always take the women's needs into consideration.

This is a scientific fact!

I am assuming you spoke to all the early Christians who read Augustine to figure out what they were thinking right?

As for spiritual authority, when did I claim these views were dogma or etched in stone.

You were the one who that made that assertion.
 
Also why single out Augustine, when the early church before him and the Eastern Fathers held the same views?

Clement of Alexandria

"Even within acceptable times of sexual activity, he states that one must never forget modesty and self-control. He sternly warns that night must never be a cover for unbridled passion, because undue passion can turn “marriage into fornication.”

You are also forgetting the historical context. Christians were surrounded by pagans who engaged in all sorts of things.
 
Christine,

For the last time, there is no double procession.

Please read my analogy of the father and son playing catch again.
 
1 – 200 of 239 Newer› Newest» Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]