Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding of the Holy Spirit: THE SAME.

[Scotth1960]

Friends. The Roman Catholic and the Evangelical Protestant "understanding" of the Holy Spirit, of the procession of the Holy Spirit, are "THE SAME". We read, "Now we must remember that the Protestant Reformation confesses the Roman Catholic 1054 AD "model" of the Trinity and is rooted in this "belief". The Lutherans confess the Roman Catholic "Holy Spirit". The Anglicans confess the Roman Catholic "Holy Spirit". The major non-denominational Protestant churches (sic) confess the Roman Catholic "Holy Spirit". This theology is really a form of Sabellianism [semi-Sabellianism according to St. Photios, SRH, ed.] condemned by the 381 AD Creed. Fact is the 381 AD Creed specifically confesses what the Church has always believed" [ORTHODOXY, post, 10-02-2005 04:27 PM, q.v. (quid videtur, which see)].

God save us here in America and throughout the world: God save those who repent (2 Chronicles 7:14). AMEN. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
:nod

 

[francisdesales]

Friends. The Roman Catholic and the Evangelical Protestant "understanding" of the Holy Spirit, of the procession of the Holy Spirit, are "THE SAME". We read, "Now we must remember that the Protestant Reformation confesses the Roman Catholic 1054 AD "model" of the Trinity and is rooted in this "belief". The Lutherans confess the Roman Catholic "Holy Spirit". The Anglicans confess the Roman Catholic "Holy Spirit". The major non-denominational Protestant churches (sic) confess the Roman Catholic "Holy Spirit". This theology is really a form of Sabellianism [semi-Sabellianism according to St. Photios, SRH, ed.] condemned by the 381 AD Creed. Fact is the 381 AD Creed specifically confesses what the Church has always believed" [ORTHODOXY, post, 10-02-2005 04:27 PM, q.v. (quid videtur, which see)].

God save us here in America and throughout the world: God save those who repent (2 Chronicles 7:14). AMEN. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
:nod

Creeds change as the Church is moved by the Spirit. Compare Nicene to Constantinople and the belief in the Spirit in both creeds...

btw, Sabellianism is an eastern heterodoxy, as are most heresies of the first millenium...

 

[Scotth1960]

Creeds change as the Church is moved by the Spirit. Compare Nicene to Constantinople and the belief in the Spirit in both creeds...

btw, Sabellianism is an eastern heterodoxy, as are most heresies of the first millenium...

NO! According to Saint Photios of the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church that there is, the FILIOQUE is a semi-Sabellian monster. Pope Saint Leo III of the Orthodox Catholic Church agrees with Saint Photios when he as pope of Rome BANS THE FILIOQUE. Don't you know what the popes of Rome did /said before the schism of 1054 AD? The popes of Rome before 1054 AD CONTRADICT the popes of Rome after 1014 AD.
In Erie Scott Harrington
PS Heterodoxy is neither eastern or western, but if you want to play that game, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are both WESTERN heterodoxy.
You aren't claiming to be Saint Frances de Sales, no? Why not just use your own name? That seems more humble.

 

[Scotth1960]

Creeds change as the Church is moved by the Spirit. Compare Nicene to Constantinople and the belief in the Spirit in both creeds...

btw, Sabellianism is an eastern heterodoxy, as are most heresies of the first millenium...

Friend, Sabellianism is a non-eastern heterodoxy. Just because it arose in the east does not make it eastern. If it is truly Orthodox, it is eastern, or western. The popes of Rome were western, and they were Orthodox until 1014 AD. Then they began saying FILIOQUE and they ALL LOST THEIR ORTHODOXY (CATHOLICITY).
(Cf. St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitories). Scott Harrington Erie PA


Friend, Here is what Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky said on the dogmatic schism between west and east:

"Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic grounds for the separation of East and West. All the other divergences which, historically, accompanied or followed the first dogmatic controversy about the "Filioque", in the measure in which they too had some dogmatic importance, are more or less dependent upon that original issue. This is only too easy to understand, when we take into account the importance of the mystery of the Trinity and its place in the whole body of Christian teaching. Thus the polemical battle between the Greeks and the Latins was fought principally about the question of the Holy Spirit. ..." (page 71: "The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox Trinitarian Doctrine", Vladimir Lossky, IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985.].
GOD SAVE US ALL. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[francisdesales]

NO! According to Saint Photios of the Catholic Church

There is no such person...

and the Orthodox Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church that there is,

As I said, its worthless bluster to make that claim, considering the Catholic Church is universal and the Orthodox Churches are national federations with very little organization between them. There are no universal Councils in Greece or Russia to define doctrine, as at Nicene or Constantinople or Florence or Vatican.

The fact remains that the Catholic Church is Catholic. The Orthodox Church doesn't call itself Catholic because it isn't. Before the Schism, the Church was simply known as the Catholic Church. Not "Orthodox Catholic Church". There is no such official name in Church history.

the FILIOQUE is a semi-Sabellian monster. Pope Saint Leo III of the Orthodox Catholic Church agrees with Saint Photios when he as pope of Rome BANS THE FILIOQUE. Don't you know what the popes of Rome did /said before the schism of 1054 AD?

The issue is not whether the definition is incorrect, but whether it was politically expedient to issue it before serious discussion with the Greeks. That is why St. Leo resisted the move to attach "and the Son" to the Creed. NOT because it was theologically incorrect, but because the Greeks had not agreed to it yet.

PS Heterodoxy is neither eastern or western, but if you want to play that game, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are both WESTERN heterodoxy.

I presume you are not Benedict the 16th, so your declaration is just another opinion with very little force...

You aren't claiming to be Saint Frances de Sales, no? Why not just use your own name? That seems more humble.

I never said I was SAINT Francis de Sales. He is my patron saint, my inspiration for remaining on this forum. How does using my own name make me humble?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Friend, Sabellianism is a non-eastern heterodoxy. Just because it arose in the east does not make it eastern.

Friend, you aren't making sense. First, your statement contradicts itself. Secondly, you show a remarkable misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, since it is not Sabellianism. We hold to the unity of God as a fundamental teaching. Maybe you could stop throwing the fancy word around and become more specific, so I could show the readers how you are clueless on Catholic teaching. Or in the process of explaining how you think we are Sabellians (an Eastern orginated heresy), I can point out your error in understanding our view.

There is plenty of Scripture evidence for the idea:

John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7,13-15; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; and Phil 1:19.

Friend, Here is what Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky said on the dogmatic schism between west and east:

"Whether we like it or not, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit has been the sole dogmatic grounds for the separation of East and West.

:p Exaggeration... Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, the role and the infallibility of the Pope...

The separation between East and West was the result of political and cultural issues. Theological disagreements were the East's cover for removing themselves from the Catholic Church.

Regards

 

[Scotth1960]

There is no such person...



As I said, its worthless bluster to make that claim, considering the Catholic Church is universal and the Orthodox Churches are national federations with very little organization between them. There are no universal Councils in Greece or Russia to define doctrine, as at Nicene or Constantinople or Florence or Vatican.

The fact remains that the Catholic Church is Catholic. The Orthodox Church doesn't call itself Catholic because it isn't. Before the Schism, the Church was simply known as the Catholic Church. Not "Orthodox Catholic Church". There is no such official name in Church history.



The issue is not whether the definition is incorrect, but whether it was politically expedient to issue it before serious discussion with the Greeks. That is why St. Leo resisted the move to attach "and the Son" to the Creed. NOT because it was theologically incorrect, but because the Greeks had not agreed to it yet.



I presume you are not Benedict the 16th, so your declaration is just another opinion with very little force...



I never said I was SAINT Francis de Sales. He is my patron saint, my inspiration for remaining on this forum. How does using my own name make me humble?

Regards

Dear francisdesales, You are mistaken that the Orthodox Church doesn't call itself Catholic. In every Divine Liturgy, the Orthodox chant (sing), "I believe in one catholic and apostolic church". You will note, the pope of Rome was not mentioned in the Creed of 381 AD. They didn't need to, because at that point he was not a heretic. Today, every pope of Rome is a heretic. The pope of Rome has produced 2 schisms from himself: first the Eastern and second the Evangelical. If unity of the faith is a criterion for truth, belief in papal infallibility produces schisms. In 1870 AD at Vatican I the pope of Rome Pius IX claimed to be Jesus Christ, "the way the truth and the life". If that isn't schism and heresy, it is hard to say what heresy would be. Claiming to be "the vicar of Christ" (sic) and "Christ in the flesh" is certainly not Catholic. It is not even Christian.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

Friend, you aren't making sense. First, your statement contradicts itself. Secondly, you show a remarkable misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, since it is not Sabellianism. We hold to the unity of God as a fundamental teaching. Maybe you could stop throwing the fancy word around and become more specific, so I could show the readers how you are clueless on Catholic teaching. Or in the process of explaining how you think we are Sabellians (an Eastern orginated heresy), I can point out your error in understanding our view.

There is plenty of Scripture evidence for the idea:

John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7,13-15; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; and Phil 1:19.



:p Exaggeration... Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, the role and the infallibility of the Pope...

The separation between East and West was the result of political and cultural issues. Theological disagreements were the East's cover for removing themselves from the Catholic Church.

Regards

Friend, There is plenty of Scriptural evidence to show the Filioque is heresy. Namely, John 15:26. Christ only has to speak once for something to be true.
Scripture doesn't have to repeat a doctrine for it to be a dogma.
The pope left the Catholic Church in 1014 AD when he started chanting "and the Son" (FILIOQUE). The Latin language has lost its original sanctity, and has become a "den of thieves" ( a place for demons). Rome has become a den of thieves. It tries to sell salvation for money. Martin Luther in 1517 AD recognized that Rome was in heresy. The Orthodox Church has not at any point endorsed indulgences. Luther's error was in not returning to the Church of the East, for Catholicity resisted many heresies in the East and triumphed in 7, actually 8, ecumenical councils. Rome used to recognize the council of Constantinople IV of 879-880 but Rome changed its mind. So much for infallibility, if Rome were infallible, it would never have had to change its mind about anything.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[jasoncran]

Friend, There is plenty of Scriptural evidence to show the Filioque is heresy. Namely, John 15:26. Christ only has to speak once for something to be true.
Scripture doesn't have to repeat a doctrine for it to be a dogma.
The pope left the Catholic Church in 1014 AD when he started chanting "and the Son" (FILIOQUE). The Latin language has lost its original sanctity, and has become a "den of thieves" ( a place for demons). Rome has become a den of thieves. It tries to sell salvation for money. Martin Luther in 1517 AD recognized that Rome was in heresy. The Orthodox Church has not at any point endorsed indulgences. Luther's error was in not returning to the Church of the East, for Catholicity resisted many heresies in the East and triumphed in 7, actually 8, ecumenical councils. Rome used to recognize the council of Constantinople IV of 879-880 but Rome changed its mind. So much for infallibility, if Rome were infallible, it would never have had to change its mind about anything.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

a language that is dead was sanctified?

latin when spoken is italian.

 

[Scotth1960]

a language that is dead was sanctified?

latin when spoken is italian.

Dear jasoncran, At one time, Latin was a living language of the Catholic Church, when the West did not confess "FILIOQUE'. When the Westerners started saying "FILIOQUE", from 589 AD in Toledo Spain, Latin died and became a nest of demons. The language was once used by God in Christ, but when Rome fell into heresy, Latin became a father of illegitimate theology. FILIOQUISM IS HERESY. Any child can read John 15:26 and find the pope of Rome in NOW IN ERROR. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[jasoncran]

Dear jasoncran, At one time, Latin was a living language of the Catholic Church, when the West did not confess "FILIOQUE'. When the Westerners started saying "FILIOQUE", from 589 AD in Toledo Spain, Latin died and became a nest of demons. The language was once used by God in Christ, but when Rome fell into heresy, Latin became a father of illegitimate theology. FILIOQUISM IS HERESY. Any child can read John 15:26 and find the pope of Rome in NOW IN ERROR. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

ok, you are way out of date here, latin isnt even used all that much here in the u.s.

the two roman catholics churches i have gone spoke and did services in english

you dont speak koine greek when you worship do you?


and in mexico its done spanish, brazil portuguese.

yes in some places its still used and to me that is pointless as its like saying this to you when you dont speak spanish

sonrisa, jesus te ama!
latin is a language that is what i was commenting on.

 

[Scotth1960]

Friend, you aren't making sense. First, your statement contradicts itself. Secondly, you show a remarkable misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, since it is not Sabellianism. We hold to the unity of God as a fundamental teaching. Maybe you could stop throwing the fancy word around and become more specific, so I could show the readers how you are clueless on Catholic teaching. Or in the process of explaining how you think we are Sabellians (an Eastern orginated heresy), I can point out your error in understanding our view.

There is plenty of Scripture evidence for the idea:

John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7,13-15; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; and Phil 1:19.



:p Exaggeration... Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, the role and the infallibility of the Pope...

The separation between East and West was the result of political and cultural issues. Theological disagreements were the East's cover for removing themselves from the Catholic Church.

Regards

Dear francisdesales, Benedict XVI? How can a Latin-speaking German tell us what the Greek text of the NT means? Didn't the original Catholic Church arise among GREEK-SPEAKING JEWS? These Jews left largely GENTILE SUCCESSORS AFTER THEM. THEY ALL WROTE IN AND SPOKE GREEK. None of them wrote the NT in LATIN. LATIN HAS BECOME A HARBOR OF HERESY, STARTING WITH FILIOQUISM, SEMI-SABELLIANISM. We ignore John 15:26 at our own peril.
Boniface VIII wanted to be a king. That was his pride, his error. No matter that he thought Christians can't be saved without submission to him. A Christian only needs to submit to Christ to be saved. No Christian should submit to a heretic. We need to find a church that doesn't preach heresy. FILIOQUE IS HERESY. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

ok, you are way out of date here, latin isnt even used all that much here in the u.s.

the two roman catholics churches i have gone spoke and did services in english

you dont speak koine greek when you worship do you?


and in mexico its done spanish, brazil portuguese.

yes in some places its still used and to me that is pointless as its like saying this to you when you dont speak spanish

sonrisa, jesus te ama!
latin is a language that is what i was commenting on.

DEAR JASONCRAN,
The English language is a mixed bag. Some of it is heretical, and says FILIOQUE. The rest of it RESISTS FILIOQUE. RUSSIAN also became a mixed bag, for some of it supported ATHEISM (COMMUNISM), while the rest supported ORTHODOXY.
SCOTTH1960

 

[jasoncran]

DEAR JASONCRAN,
The English language is a mixed bag. Some of it is heretical, and says FILIOQUE. The rest of it RESISTS FILIOQUE. RUSSIAN also became a mixed bag, for some of it supported ATHEISM (COMMUNISM), while the rest supported ORTHODOXY.
SCOTTH1960

what does a language have to do with doctrine???

its better to say the the doctrine is bad then simply say the language is besides. russian is spoken in all the former soviet states. if i dont know better you are saying greeks alone are saved.

 

[jasoncran]

athiesm and communism arent one and the same. you have athiestic capitilists and athiest socialists as well.

and you may have christians that believe in that stuff.

the means to govern isnt endorsed nor condemned by the bible , rather just that it be in line gods principle
in theory one could easily have a christian socialist state if all volunteered to do that. just as the same with a capitalist one.

for what i am talking about roughly look at the government of australia(secular) but embraces much of the christian values we hold dear.

 

[Scotth1960]

what does a language have to do with doctrine???

its better to say the the doctrine is bad then simply say the language is besides. russian is spoken in all the former soviet states. if i dont know better you are saying greeks alone are saved.

Dear Jasoncran, I did not say that Greeks alone are saved. I said GOD CHOSE GREEK TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL. The original language the NT GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN IN WAS IN GREEK. SO THE WORD OF GOD IS PRESERVED INFALLIBLY FIRST IN GREEK. MAYBE IT IS PRESERVED INFALLIBLY ALSO IN OTHER TONGUES, BUT THESE MUST AGREE WITH THE THEOPNEUSTOS GOD-BREATHED GREEK NT!
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[jasoncran]

Dear Jasoncran, I did not say that Greeks alone are saved. I said GOD CHOSE GREEK TO SPREAD THE GOSPEL. The original language the NT GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN IN WAS IN GREEK. SO THE WORD OF GOD IS PRESERVED INFALLIBLY FIRST IN GREEK. MAYBE IT IS PRESERVED INFALLIBLY ALSO IN OTHER TONGUES, BUT THESE MUST AGREE WITH THE THEOPNEUSTOS GOD-BREATHED GREEK NT!
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

well being a jew here and aware of my lineage(not that i know it all and was raised in the temple)

the hellinistic jews were jews who were in captiivity that never returned to the land and need to be able to read greek translations of the jewish canon.

that is what happened several hundred yrs before christ, and also koine greek was the language of the diplomats and also that the basic educated person had to speak and greek and since the greek empire was first then the latin, the romans let it be used and as it was so common.

the hellinistic jew if i recall didnt follow the law like the pharisitical jew did.

in fact there was some hatred tween those and that stayed after they believed.

aramiaic is what the lord spoke not greek.

 

[jasoncran]

this says otherwise

Jesus the Messiah spoke in the Galilean dialect of the Ancient Aramaic language. This is the language in which the disciples and the apostles preached the Gospel and the scribes recorded the Scriptures. The New Testament has been preserved in this sacred, scribal language since the Apostolic Age. The whole Bible was originated in this language. The translation that you find on this website is made from the original Ancient Aramaic Scriptures directly into English, bypassing the errors of translation introduced in the Greek Original, the Latin Vulgate and all the Western translations made from them. This is an attempt to rekindle the Apostolic Faith in the name of Eashoa Msheekhah (Jesus the Messiah) throughout the world.

but i dont think that the bible is in err here as all true translations have kept the errs to nil.

some translation dont say things well or have a bias but that isnt enough to throw them out.

 

[Scotth1960]

this says otherwise

Jesus the Messiah spoke in the Galilean dialect of the Ancient Aramaic language. This is the language in which the disciples and the apostles preached the Gospel and the scribes recorded the Scriptures. The New Testament has been preserved in this sacred, scribal language since the Apostolic Age. The whole Bible was originated in this language. The translation that you find on this website is made from the original Ancient Aramaic Scriptures directly into English, bypassing the errors of translation introduced in the Greek Original, the Latin Vulgate and all the Western translations made from them. This is an attempt to rekindle the Apostolic Faith in the name of Eashoa Msheekhah (Jesus the Messiah) throughout the world.

but i dont think that the bible is in err here as all true translations have kept the errs to nil.

some translation dont say things well or have a bias but that isnt enough to throw them out.

Dear JASONCRAN, What we DON'T KNOW for sure SINCE WE WERE NOT THERE is WHAT LANGUAGES THE GOSPEL WAS PREACHED IN. Since the Gospel up until 70 AD was preached IN ALL THE NATIONS, WE CAN ASSUME THAT THE APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES OF CHRIST USED MANY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES TO PREACH THE WORD OF GOD. ARAMAIC, HEBREW TOO, YES! GREEK MAINLY! YES! THE COMMON LANGUAGE BACK THEN WAS NOT LATIN, BUT GREEK. BUT AMONG THE ROMANS, THEY USED LATIN. GREEK WAS GOD'S CHOSEN VESSEL TO PRESERVE THE WORDS OF OUR LORD GOD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. IN GREEK. NOT IN ARAMAIC. IN ERIE PA SCOTT R. HARRINGTON

 

[jasoncran]

jews of that that day in jerusalem spoke aramiac and or hebrew.

greeks was used but in the temple it was the hebrew that was used.

but this is off topic so on this i will let this be my last comment.