mercredi 27 février 2013

Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054

Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King, 11) Unfriending someone who is friends with people considering homeless mentally ill

I also get insulted by Gregory Lauder-Frost, who seems to be a public figure.

I didn't know the Russian schismatic Metropolitan of St Petersburg (still Leningrad at the time) died while attending the inauguration Mass of Pope John Paul I. Of course, Metropolitan Nikodim was a KGB agent.

Also, with the cooperation of the Eastern schismatics during the Second Vatican Council, one might say that it was a truly ecumenical council; of course, one might also say that it was a truly invalid council, having had the participation of obstinate schismatics.

Regardless, it was a mess, and I still can't help but accuse Emperor Otto for his abdication, which continues to haunt us. Hopefully the abdication of our current Pontifex Maximus doesn't come back to haunt us just as frightfully.
Gregory Lauder-Frost (full name because public person)
I always thought it was Rome which was schismatic! it was they who broke away to do their own thing. Not visa versa.
Duc de Berwick (full name because just a pseudonym anyway, I think)
How the hell did Rome break away? It was the fat lard Henry VIII who broke off he is the schismatic.
Gregory Lauder-Frost
Rome broke with the Orthodox Church. (Orthodox meaning 'true'.)
I think Nikodim died during a private audience with John Paul I. A double agent so I don't know which side he was really on: he was both secretly in the church and a KGB agent. I don't think you can blame the Orthodox for the council. The Orthodox rite's like us, not the Novus Ordo!
The moniker "Orthodox Church" is a modern invention. Until the Mohammedans convinced them otherwise they always considered themselves Roman.
Gregory Lauder-Frost
Completely and utterly untrue.
What is?
Gregory Lauder-Frost
Your ridiculous last comment.
Good point. The medieval Greeks were the Roman Empire in the sense that Taiwan is the Republic of China.
Gregory Lauder-Frost
The fact remains that the Christian Church HQ was in Constantinople and the church was alive and well in the Eastern Empire when the western was being sacked by barbarians and when Rome was effectively a ghost city and the Christian population (a small minority) was being seriously persecuted. These are irrefutable historical facts.
Rome didn't 'break away'. The differences aren't big enough to warrant the East/West split, so I can't buy that true Christianity remained only in parts of Eastern Europe and the Mideast, plus most Orthodox have sold out on contraception.
Gregory Lauder-Frost
But we are not talking about what happened to Christianity in subsequent centuries following the decline and fall of the Eastern Empire. That is not under discussion here. The **schism** was Rome breaking away from the body of the church to do its own thing. I have never read anyone disputing this absolutely historical fact. It is beyond belief that the Catholics have rewritten history to suit themselves. Bit like Stalin really.
GL-F is always looking for a way to rationalise his own Anglican schism.
Gregory Lauder-Frost
No I'm not. Stick to the singular issue here.
Hans-Georg Lundahl = HGL (for short) = me
"The fact remains that the Christian Church HQ was in Constantinople and the church was alive and well in the Eastern Empire ..."
- True for alive, except well would imply better freedom from heresies and schisms. HQ - not true.
"... when the western was being sacked by barbarians and when Rome was effectively a ghost city ..."
- Depends a bit on what you mean by sacked by barbarians.
"and the Christian population (a small minority) was being seriously persecuted."
- Totally wrong, since France (at the time including Western Germany and Benelux) did not allow persecution of Christian Orthodoxy, but rather persecuted Arian heresy. Also France had the more Christian public mores.*

So much for your "undisputable" historic facts. Some people here do know history.(You seem to think Romanides is a good source for Western Europe anno 400 - anno 500 - he is not.)
Gregory Lauder-Frost
You're delusional. Your posts have nothing to do with the discussion. We are discussing the schism. My qualifications are sufficient for me to believe that I know what I am talking about thank you, you insulting crétin.
If we're dating the schism from 1054, as most historians date it today, it historically occurred over Michael Cerularius's accusation of the western Church of Judaizing by using unleavened bread in the mass and his subsequent refusal to meet with Papal legates to discuss the matter. The other stuff (That easterners at the time found the Filioque a bar to communion, that they considered the Papacy's claims a bar to communion, etc) have been made up by later EO.

Basically what it comes down to is that the Greeks didn't like the Latins for cultural and political reasons and decided to find a way to not be in communion with them.
Hans-Georg Lundahl (to Gregory)
Oh, you speak of insulting? Never mind. Who was ruling Gaul 500? What confederation beat Attila at possibly Châlons sur Marne? What was the position of Catholics, a k a Orthodox under Burgundian rule? How did St Hilary of Poitiers relate to Pope St Leo I on a question where Photius thought only of St John of Damascus? What did the First Council of Toledo teach about the same question? Answer these correctly if your credntials are so good. And yes, it has to do with the schism since the staple argument for some "Orthodox" is "Western Europe was just Barbarians, so how could they have preserved Theology correctly?" How do you rate learning in Ireland and among Saxons of Britain? Six questions or seven if you rate the last one as two.

Easy for you, if your credentials are sufficient, right?

Oh, and when Corsica bought slaves from infidels and did not free them, who ordered them to free the slaves (for nothing but charity) and whom did he accuse of the custom of just bying them and keeping them as slaves?

(we are talking 800's or so on the last one)
Gregory Lauder-Frost
Do get a shave a haircut and a bath.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Shave and haircut is not for you to decide, bath cannot be ascertained over internet, and if some bastards over here gossip in your direction, I might smell better if I got money for washing clothes while begging. Now, keep on topic and answer the questions, please ...

You know your name is googlable, do you? I google mine once in a while, do take a look at your own ...
Gregory Lauder-Frost
The smears and the lies of the universal Left and the things they fail to mention are not my concern. Historical truth is.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Ah, then your historical truth might include some exact historical knowledge about the seven to eight questions I posed you ...
Gregory Lauder-Frost
Irrelevant to the simple fact that the schism was a break by the Bishop of Rome with The Church. He recognised that the church in the Eastern Empire was failing due to the continued incursions of the Turks et al, and that the Dark Ages in Italy and Rome had passed and that the church in the Latin Empire was in the ascendancy and so it was a good political move for him.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
All of them are questions of historical fact, all of them have exact answers, why do you hesitate and ... ah no. They are not irrelevant to that fact. One has recently posed the question whether it was John Paul II who broke with Mgr Lefèbvre or the reverse. What is your argument in disfavour of St Leo IX (or whatever Pope YOU consider as the guilty one)?

Because, in Rome the saying is that Caerularius was the one who broke with Pope St Leo IX as well as with the most simple Christian justice, charity and above all Eucharistic Piety.

Even if Rome is in ruins on a certain day, that does not make Constantinople the recognised heart of the Church. Never did, never will do. After schism, Constantinople posed as replacement for a Rome fallen into heresy - as Palmar de Troya does this day.

(I should know, I was after all Palmarian for fourteen months ... remaining part of a prison sentence I had already served two thirds of, so to speak)

B b l (might even take notice of your advice about a bath, although I have no clean clothes to change to after it - if you calls showers baths) (lundi, à 14:44)
Also, one could argue that the Great Schism was healed with Vatican II, with their participation, and Pope Paul VI abolishing the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, etc.

I've come to the conclusion that if any group is to blame for Vatican II, it's the "Eastern Orthodox", who, themselves, have always been the tool of our enemies, whether they be Ottomans or Communists (same thing, really).
Gregory Lauder-Frost
Cyril, you know very well that is not the issue. We all know that the Latin rite was widespread in what had been the old western Empire. But we also know that the Orthodox rites were widely practised in the West (Charlemagne, for instance, used them) and in many parts of Italy. Rites are not the issue. Schism is the issue.

But we are not talking about rites.....
Martin (a Seminarian)
"Gregory Lauder-Frost: Irrelevant to the simple fact that the schism was a break by the Bishop of Rome with The Church." Sir, are you intoxicated?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Schism of 1054 was about Michael Caerularius considering the Latin rite invalid. There was no mutuality in that barbarious prejudice of his, Latins did not and do not consider Greek rite invalid, and if it was not widespread exactly (or would you prove Old Sarum used leavened bread?) it did exist in Sicily, it had been temporarily suppressed by a Norman only a generation or two away from Viking Pagan ancestors and it was restored. Unlike the Caerularius attitude to the Latin rite. (lundi, à 16:33)

I note two things: one person I blocked ["Cyril"] and who had previously insulted me on items similar to those taken up by Gregory is on the thread, since he is being adressed by someone. The other is that I have been away for an hour, and Gregory Lauder-Frost, you have still not taken the time to google the relevant facts I was asking you about, and hysterically saying that they are irrelevant won't make them so. You give your version, I explain the relevance.
It's going too far to talk of a 'break' between John Paul II and Abp Lefebvre. Lefebvre, unlike the gradual estrangement of the Christian East or the schisms of Henry VIII and the Old Catholics (now a liberal rump sect), never broke with the church in principle. That's why SSPX bishops don't claim jurisdiction; only the Pope can give jurisdiction. The SSPX says it took an emergency action because of the crisis in the church. That the bishops aren't excommunicated anymore says it all. They're in the church.

Again I can't blame the Orthodox for V2. They're their own thing, traditional and at heart Catholic but they don't want to admit it, and want little to do with us. If the Orthodox caused V2, the Novus Ordo wouldn't exist.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I may not blame the Orthodox for V-II, but I do blame them for abusing the weakness of Latins after it ... including by a weird game of probable excommunications against me.

Also, some items they were pretty "V-II-ish" or "Konzilsungeist" before the thing. Evolution, and very soon after V-II Contraception too.

(Note that not only before the Schism, but also on both sides of it after it occurred, for centuries one was Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric up till very recently, and it has not ended with exclusive ownership for opposite positions, at least not with us Latins as far as Geocentrism is concerned, and even Greeks some of them reject Evolution)

OK, since Gregory Lauder-Frost has not deigned to answer, I will offer up the answers:

Who was ruling Gaul 500?
- A Frankish King who was also a Roman Patrician (equal of Stilicho) by decree of the Basileus. So Franks were Barbarians? And what Christians did he persecute after conversion, since he could not get Gaul without converting?
What confederation beat Attila at possibly Châlons sur Marne?
- Romans with Bretons were assisted by a temporary alliance with Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths. So Franks were Barbarians?
What was the position of Catholics, a k a Orthodox under Burgundian rule?
- Unlike Visigothic rule, Catholics (sometimes referred to as Orthodox) at times had equal rights with the Arians.

So Franks were Barbarians and persecuting the faith?
That's great about Patriarch Kyrill. We and they are on parallel tracks with rival one-true-church claims, the only real difference being belief about papal authority. But sacramentally we're the same. And they're traditional! They rightly see us as allies in the culture war but union - they'd have to accept the Pope's authority - probably won't happen.

They want to be left in peace in Eastern Europe and in their immigrant communities. They're benignly indifferent to us and aren't strong enough to go after us. Reading Timothy Ware's 'The Orthodox Church' I picked up on the irony that the scant defined doctrine and decentralized ecclesiology sound like Modernists and mainliners. Scary. A dead end. But, except for contraception, they have their act together. Still more an estranged kind of Catholicism than a different church.

Hooray for Russia. Боже, храни Россию. A badass like Putin in charge, pictured in church lighting candles at icons, tearing down churches that have gay weddings, throwing P*ssy Riot in jail... blame THEM for V2? HET! (NYET!)
Hans-Georg Lundahl
How did St Hilary of Poitiers relate to Pope St Leo I on a question where Photius thought only of St John of Damascus?
- Both St Hilary of Poitiers and Pope St Leo I taught the double procession of the Holy Ghost, unlike St John of Damascus and Photius. Oh, St Athanasius had also confessed it.
What did the First Council of Toledo teach about the same question?
- It was held in anno 400 and even used the very words qui ex patre filioque procedit in its rule of faith.
It's not rocket science. 'THROUGH the Son.' The rest, as has been said here, is bullsh*t rationalization for political and cultural reasons. No justification for schism.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Now, in 400 Spain was Roman, precisely as Gaul. Not a case of filioque imposed by Barbarians who know nothing of the faith or who teach before having been taught. John, I also read Timothy Ware, some do not feel he represents Orthodox Theology.

No, [John], St Hilary, St Leo and St Athanasius were not content with "a patre per filium" but said "ab utroque". And first Council of Toledo also was not saying "a patre per filium", though that is not wrong, but "a patre filioque".

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms): Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo
Orthodoxy's grassroots folk Catholicism, resistant to change, is what Latin Catholicism needs to relearn.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Some have it.
When Benedict repeated Catholicism's one-true-church claim, the stupid or lying media acted like it was something new and shrieked with the mainline. The Russians respected him: he was talking their language.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Unfortunately it has been abused against me. I was unwise enough to convert to Orthodoxy in a moment when I had something else to say about filioque, I completed the conversion while re-believing filioque, under the understanding "Orthodoxy= Church Fathers" and Church Fathers do endorse filioque, and they seem to have excommunicated me. They seem to want authority over me back even though I converted back to Traditional Catholicism. And they use it in the end to defend undefensible positions like Evolution.

I seem to have been condemned by both sides because I thought the one true church survived both sides of 1054.
Well, as a traditional Catholic you wouldn't ask the Orthodox for Communion anyway. You can ask in an emergency but their rules say never. So why care if they excommunicate you?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am stating they are abusing excommunication as a spiritual weapon. Handing my body over to the demon and that stuff. I do not know if their power comes from having stayed part of true church or from Vatican II and Paul VI lifting excommunications. But I seem haunted by a curse.

I did communicate with Orthodox, when I had a quarrel with the Trad Catholic parish where I was. People thinking of me about as Gregory Lauder-Frost does ...
Unlike conservative Protestants, evolution vs. creationism's not a hill I'll die for. The church says theistic evolution's fine: somewhere along the line, God gave man an immortal, rational soul. Not the same as, I understand, Darwin's random evolution.

Very sorry to read of the curse, Hans-Georg. God is greater than any curse.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
He is, but so far ... as for Evolution, I can live with a bishop who says it is licit to believe, but here in France bishops want us to call Young Earth Creationism a Protestant heresy or a Paganism. Biblical Inerrancy is under a general attack from people like Bible scholar Marc Sevin.

(I do not know if he is Assumptionist, may presently look it up, but the Assumptionists gave him a cathedra for their "Summer University" back in 2005)

Of course, it is possible that excommunications and curses have come from the pariush priest of St Nicolas du Chardonnet. Or from French bishops who hate Creationism.

pariush? parish of course! there you see what I mean, not the first misspelling I correct on this thread, and I used to be an excellent speller!
If that's true, those bishops are wrong. As far as I know neither evolution nor creationism is Catholic doctrine. As for inerrancy, the Bible's the church's book; it means what the church says it means.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
The Bible means what Church Fathers throughout two thousand years have said it means.

(Trent stated something about never to expose Scripture "except according to the unanimous consensus of the holy fathers" ... and hopefully they did not impose silence on all topics where Church Fathers disagree)
Russian church did not participate last Assisi. 90% of Russian bishops condemn V2
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fortunately. But when it comes to contraception and evolution they are more modernist than Roman Catholics ....
Russia reminds me of one giant gangster state ruled by pimp daddy Putin. Very similar to Mexican cartels.
Duc de Berwick
Little do I post one comment and then I have to catch up good 85 other comments. Right Orthodox this, Constantine XI the last Roman Emperor died in Union with the Papacy the archbishop of Constantinople at that period died in Rome and as a Greek Catholic in Union with the Papacy.

If a bunch of schismatics wish to follow their muppet archbishop appointed by the Turban-Sultan it is their problem, not Rome's.
excuse me?do you mean this masonic pedophile hierarchy of Vatican 2 is a legitimate succession of St. Peter? If so- you should see a doctor. Russians at least have a valid Mass and apostolic faith. For Vatican there is but sulfur and smoke ... No where it is written that one should follow the POPE even if he is in apostasy and has but nominal value!

'Schismatic' is reserved for those who are excommunicated by the valid pope/bishop. No one in the russian church was excommunicated, and they are NOT in your reach to rape them too. I am very glad for Russians. Armenian current patriarch is a criminal and whore who destroys the church; other than it- I am glad for them too. Kiril is a VERY good patriarch. he is SMART a GOOD diplomat, and he fools all globalist demons in WCC and vatican . ha, ha, ha...
Duc de Berwick
With all due respect Mrs. [Anna], the Armenian current patriarch is still the head of the armenians! Whether he is a criminal or not cannot be your cup to judge, but up to God. In the same manner if John XXIII, Paul VI and the list of V2 Popes are criminals, then how do you think Catholics feel about it?

We must be strong and avoid judging our fellow patriarchs, God's judgment will be reserved for them in the afterlife. For now we must make do, we should follow not the acts and deeds but the principle of Papacy. Schisms have plagued Christianity a lot, one after another from 1054 to Henry VIII.

And whenever the good people such as Constantine XI Palaiologos and Patriarch Gregory III of Constantinople came close to unite Rome with the East. You always had idiots who were ready to break up these divine unions.

Same can be said with Protestant England. Mary I of England brought England back out of the darkness and the court of Elizabeth I was only too quick to make things worse.
First of all- you KNOW NOTHING what about you are talking.and apostasy is the ONLY THING which can be judged by all true Christians. What happened to your brothel - vatican- it will NEVER happen to the Armenian Church, for Armenians are not filthy demonicas like neo-catholics. They FIGHT and we will win!

Look for your 'papacy' only in Lucifer's hell. they are no longer on the earth. God had annihilated them. next is you.
Duc de Berwick
I am sorry Mrs. [Anna] for having got you angry. Can I still recant and join the Armenian Apostolic Church?
you have to! there are many GOOD priests who are doing their job with utmost fear of God. We have problems with this post-KGB imposter patriarch only. he like a snake spits in the cup we drink from.
I love these "nationalists" and their "national churches" , ever so Universal is their Faith, especially the ones that claim to be a woman... Armenian, Serbian,Romanian, Bulgarian they all share that same standard line of " you know nothing of what you speak of"

It never gets old.......

Before you react Anna, just know that I know that I know nothing, I'm just a baby afterall as you can tell by my photo. [profile picture = photo of a baby]
Hans-Georg Lundahl
To complete the quiz answers, I had asked:
Oh, and when Corsica bought slaves from infidels and did not free them, who ordered them to free the slaves (for nothing but charity) and whom did he accuse of the custom of just bying them and keeping them asslaves?
- The answer is, the Pope ordered Corsicans to free the slaves for nothing, and he accused "The Greeks" for having persuaded Corsicans to keep the slaves they had redeemed from infidels.

Whether the accusation was just is for better experts of Byzantine history than me to decide, but in the West it was believed Byzantine influence on Corsica was pro-slavery. And France had abolished slavery under Queen St Bathilde. Now does that strike anyone as if the Franks were Barbarians and Byzantium the only refuge of civilisation? Note, I am talking about back then, when the schism was made and prepared.

Btw, Gregory, "Orthodox" means right-believing or right-opining or right-praising. True is "alethos" in Greek.
this broad is nuts.
Duc de Berwick
Which broad?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Do we even wan't to know whom he is discourteous to?

*True about punishments too, insofar as Byzantine punishment of blinding a man was never introduced in France, or rather Frankish Kingdom and any successor state, since the Church opposed it./HGL

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire