Debate with Two Orthodox

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Debate with Two Orthodox · Two Orthodox Continue · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Unconvincing "Testimony" on Peter the Aleut and his Supposed Martyrdom by Catholics

Alex Coleman

July 27 2022, 15:12

[shared meme:]

Every modern western philosophy is a heresy of western christianity. Western christianity is a heresy of Orthodoxy.

[own words:]

Neitzche and the existentialists are the only exception among the modern thinkers of the West. Canadian philosopher George Grant stated that all atheists were on the Left until Nietzsche. Neitzsche is the father of the atheist Right. The Neitzschian defense of hierarchy is one that should be avoided by Christians. God has established His order of creation for the benefit of all creatures who exist within the chain of being. "The greatest among you shall be servant of the least," said the Savior.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I would not consider Catholicism a heresy.

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahl the Pope's jurisdictional supremacy over all and the Filioque were the two main innovations of the Western Church a thousand years ago, which were rejected by the rest of the Christendom, which resulted in the Latins excommunicating all who were not under the pope. Over the past thousand years we have seen the sad fruits of it. The holy tree of saints has dried out, Western medieval spirituality became more and more different from that of the early Church, while those the Rome excommunicated, have had flourishing spirituality and saints like in the early centuries, a clear sign of continuity and work of the Holy Spirit, present uniquely in the Church. Then followed various other innovations in the West, which are rather numerous to list here, the infallibility of the pope, the Immaculate Conception and the role of co-mediatrix being just some of them. So, yeah, it's a heresy, and has been growing more and more apart from historic Christian Tradition into a new entity - Papacy or Latinism insomuch as it is different from the Orthodoxy of the first Christian millennium.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• Pope's jurisdictional supremacy - see Second Clement (only First Clement can be explained totally as response to an active appeal);
• Filioque was taught by St. Athanasius and by the FIRST council of Toledo*;
• Andreas Faulhaber, killed over refusing to reveal the secret of confession is not a dired out saint, his tongue is preserved;
• it is not a flourishing spirituality to invent a fake martyrdom for "St. Peter the Aleut";
• infallibility of the Pope follows from infallibility of the Church and jurisdictional supremacy
• the Immaculate conception was taught by Greeks and Copts while Latins were doubting (due to a false conclusion by St. Augustine) and more specifically, in the Greek and Coptic versions of Sub tuum praesidium, and by Palamas and by Avvakum, while Nikon attacked it due to copying a manual from Venice by an "Orthodox" who had made part of his studied under Lutherans (because they weren't Catholic)
• Co-Mediatrix was taught by the late Anthony of Sourozh in School for Prayer.

footnote interruption

* See my translation work from Latin to English on this page:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo
https://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. If the Roman Church limited the supremacy of the Pope to the West, Orthodoxy would not object. St. Irenaeus of Lyon said that, "all come to Rome to settle their disputations." This indicates supremacy of authority in the West but not over the Church as a whole. In terms of Filioque, the chief error of the Latins is that Rome altered the creed in the absence of an Ecumenical Council. St. Thomas cites St. Athanasius as teaching Filioque. However, in the version which I read, there is no footnote with that citation. I presume that St. Thomas is citing a document that is no longer extant. I have read in fact that the Old Believers may well have a stronger claim than has been believed in the past.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"If the Roman Church limited the supremacy of the Pope to the West, Orthodoxy would not object."

First, Uniate Churches do enjoy in practise far greater autonomy than dioceses within the Latin one. Second, while Constantinople was "carved out of" the original "Latin patriarchate" if such, it is dubious whether patriarchates are really an apostolic tradition or a disciplinary innovation by Nicaea. St. Clement wrote to Corinth which is now in patriarchate of Constantinople.

"In terms of Filioque, the chief error of the Latins is that Rome altered the creed in the absence of an Ecumenical Council."

Or the fourth council has a truncated text of it. The now extant Greek texts, Nicaea ends with "and in the Holy Spirit, Amen" and only Chalcedon has the creed from two councils earlier. In Spain, the text tradition as shown by Third Council of Toledo about the Creed itself, and also the belief as shown in an explicatory creed in condemning Priscillianism at the First Council of Toledo (AD 400) show filioque was believed.

Finally, there has been an ecumenical council for Filioque, in Florence.

"St. Thomas cites St. Athanasius as teaching Filioque. However, in the version which I read, there is no footnote with that citation."

I have found it not just in the ultrafamous Quicumque vult (creed-essay handed in by St. Athanasius to the Pope and later elevated to creed for hours, replacing Apostolic one, on certain days), but also in his letters.

"I presume that St. Thomas is citing a document that is no longer extant."

He's most presumably referring to Quicumque vult. Extant.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am not familiar with the incident of St. Clement of Rome and Corinth. I will have to study the matter. The quotation by St. Thomas of St. Athanasius is indeed of the Athanasian Creed. That I did not immediately recognize this, demonstrates the deficiency of my learning. It is odd that there was no footnote to this famous document. The Orthodox are well aware of Toledo and it's inclusion of Filioque. The Arian controversy caused that council to embrace the teaching despite it's Sabellian implications. It is odd that you invoke an argument against the apostolic origin of patriarchates. If true, this negates not only the Orthodox Church but the Roman Church also. Such an argument is very Protestant.

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahlthank you for the reply. I read your statements, but they are without references. One thing is an opinion of an individual bishop or even a local council (NOT Ecumentical), another thing is the universal teaching of the Church. Filioque was NEVER accepted conciliarly outside the Latin See. Same goes for the Pope's universal mandatory authority. It was NOT a common early Church practice.

The martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut is no dogmatic issue and your words denying it seem like being in denial. What are you going to deny next? Perhaps that crusaders massacred Orthodox Christians and robbed their churches?

Antony of Surozh was in the Soviet KGB Church, had various New Agish ideas, not a dogmatic authority for sure.

The Immaculate Conception is NOT taught by the Orthodox Church and was never talked about on the Ecumenical Council level. It is NOT a dogma of the early Church, just a Latin one, taking away the crown of holy struggle against one's fallen nature from the Mother of God, like she did not earn her holiness, it was given to her before birth and she did not have to make the effort other saints did. It is an insult to the greatest saint and an attempt to turn her into a deity, same as the comediatrix concept. Yeah, a heresy for sure.

Now Vatican has been infiltrated by Freemasons anyway, kind of nullifying what's left of Latin Church's continuity with the historic Roman See. It is a worldly organization, which uses religion to help the one world govt influence and control world population. Most Orthodox sees have also fallen to this scourge, with just small portions of it remaining true to Holy Tradition among their hierarchy. Obviously the true to Tradition churches are not in communion with heretical bishops. The current Latin Pope is considered a heretic even by many Catholics for his interesting opinions, which hint at his Freemason affiliation, trying to liberalize the modern Catholic faith even more so.

And we come back to Latin spirituality. It is nonexistent now, but even in Middle Ages it was deviating. I has all but dried up over the centuries since the Great Schism, with emotions taking its place. Just judging the tree by its fruit.

Orthodox Christian Information Center* : A Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

footnote interruption

* Didn't have time to look the link up. I don't use internet 24 by 24 and the debate with him and Alex Coleman are not my only ones and Eugene sends links and links that save time for him (see below too) and put time on me if meant as arguments I get an obligation to answer.

A very quick look : "The truly righteous always consider themselves unworthy of God." / —Dictum of St Isaac the Syrian

As much an argument against Sts. Bridget (and Barbara and Lucy, I think Agnes and Agatha too, and they are pre-schism), and against St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

Scenario, whether I know it or not, I am in fact right at a given point in time (not necessarily while writing this) truly righteous.

Do I consider myself unworthy of God, even if my father confessor told me I was worthy? Is that my "true righteousness" or my disobedience to the priest who wields God's forgiveness?

Could it be, St. Augustine is more relevant for the tradition of sainthood in the West Mediterranean than a Saint known not just as "the Syrian" but also "of Nineveh" and "of Qatar" even if we assume both were in fact perfectly holy?

Unlike Saint Barbara (who thought herself "worthy of God" at least in the sense of wanting to be His bride (I'm pretty sure this was the case with Lucy, but think also the other two virgin martyrs Agnes and Agatha)), Isaac is not honoured BOTH by all Roman Catholics AND by all Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox may have adopted him as a Saint, but his communion was with Nestorius, not with Chalcedon. A fine authority by which to debunk Sts Thérèse de Lisieux, and Chiara di Assisi and Birgitta af Vadstena - or is Saint Barbara (before the schisms against Ephesus I and Chalcedon a better one to uphold them?

Before that, there is a quote from Father Serge, by the writer Tolstoy whom Pobodonostsev excommunicated and called an antichrist for his Arian heresy (shared with the Swede Rydberg) and also for heresies on moral theology about certain items in the Sermon of the Mount closer to Albigensians than to Arians, and fortunately not shared by my countryman.

There is a deepened discussion about the stigmata of St. Francis. They refer to G. Dumas, Revue des deux mondes to say the stigmata can be a nervous, psychosomatic phenomenon. Any miracle must be evaluated when it happens by the knowledge available then. Hansens disease, also known as leprosy, can now be healed without miracle. But it takes six months of antibiotics. If Christ healed as rapidly as stated in the Gospels it was still a miracle. However, it may be added, G. Dumas' analysis would seem to have been wrong, and a way to gain some kind of medical dictatorship over stigmatics. The alpha state has been studied very well since the days when his article appeared in 1907, in a publication that started to be offered to the public in 1829. I wonder if the publication has since then published any article debunking G. Dumas.

A Catholic considers there are three means to get stigmata:

• human agency (some accused Padre Pio of using carbolic acid), but a perfectly direct conscious one, not the alpha or even delta state (though the latter seems still a bit unexplored)
• God (via angels)
• demons

The protocols of the canonisation process for the Poverello should be somewhere in the Vatican libraries, and there were many other miracles to his favour.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "I am not familiar with the incident of St. Clement of Rome and Corinth. I will have to study the matter."

First Clementine : can be explained by an appeal from Corinth to Rome.
Second Clementine : the Pope follows up, without any extra appeal.

"The Orthodox are well aware of Toledo and it's inclusion of Filioque."

No, you aren't. You have pretended that Third Council of Toledo (589) decided to include Filioque into the creed. This is simply not the case. Its acts start with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, with the Filioque, as if this was the most natural thing in the world, and how they had always said this creed.

Now, there is another creed, decided on as an extra explanation of the faith to Priscillianists, which is far earlier, from the First Council of Toledo. September 400. Romans only, no Wisigoths present as yet.

"The Arian controversy caused that council to embrace the teaching despite it's Sabellian implications."

• 1) Where in the Third Council's acts do you find any kind of controversy about the Filioque or any kind of decision on it?
• 2) Why would it have been (as a teaching) in need of any extra decision, when the exact same region had Filioque in another creed (against Priscillianism) 189 years earlier, and with no big Arian controversy ongoing?
• 3) Just because Photius considered Filioque implies Sabellianism doesn't mean that it does so, see St. Thomas Aquinas.

"It is odd that you invoke an argument against the apostolic origin of patriarchates."

I am not arguing against a Petrine origin of Rome, Antioch and Jerusalem, nor a semi-Petrine one of Alexandria.

Whether Constantinople has a proper background in St. Andrew is possible, but it seems he only left priests, presbyters, there, not bishops.

I am questioning whether the level "patriarch" between papacy and metropolitan is an apostolic formal division of the Church or came about at Nicea for disciplinary reasons.

"If true, this negates not only the Orthodox Church but the Roman Church also."

Not insofar as papacy is a higher and therefore other level than patriarchy and one that I was not questioning.

"Such an argument is very Protestant."

Not as I put it.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. You are a formidable opponent. That is to be welcomed. "Iron sharpens iron."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov Before we discuss the rest, how about this one?

"The martyrdom of St. Peter the Aleut is no dogmatic issue and your words denying it seem like being in denial."

• 1) It is highly implausible that Spanish Inquisitors would kill anyone for the disciplinary reason of refusing azymes. Pretending leavened bread is the only proper matter is a disciplinary form of schism, but it is insofar not heretical that leavened bread is regarded as valid matter for uniate churches (and the unions had been made before his supposed date of death).
  
  
• 2) It is also highly implausible they would kill a foreigner rather than expel him. Unless for some reason he had decided to stay, at the very least.
  
  
• 3) It is not just implausible, but impossible that, if killing him, they would have imitated the Persian killers of St. John of Persia instead of using their own normal procedure (also used by Russians for Avvakum), that being burning, optionally strangulation for mercy before the burning or before the full burning.
  
  
• 4) It is a highly noteworthy coincidence that Hermann of Alaska had a devotion to St. John of Persia and therefore knew that precise martyrdom and had presumably more than once preached it to Aleuts before they went on the trip. It is equally noteworthy that his warnings against azymes may have seemed to them like a curse.
  
  
• 5) My guess is, he decided to stay in California to marry, he became a Latin, his comrades invented the martyrdom to preserve him against Hermann's curse.

This is the more benign interpretation, Russia was also seeking reasons to interfere into the then possession of Spain.

"Perhaps that crusaders massacred Orthodox Christians and robbed their churches?"

No, there were such massacres on both sides. And when the Catholics were Uniates, there were also such Church robberies on both sides. But those weren't processes for heresy in the Inquisition, they were fights about who was to control what was thought of as Christianity in a certain place.

I'll be back when you say more about this, about the other things too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman Thank you!

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You affirm that Filioque is present in the original version of the creed from the council of 381? Furthermore, you affirm that four of the five centers of the Church prior to Chalcedon and the formal Pentarchy, derive their origin and authority from St. Peter? I am aware of the argument of St. Thomas against St. Photios, although he does not actually name him. The argument is brilliant to be sure and displays the genius of the Angelic Doctor. However, as with all earthly things, there is always point and counterpoint. I must study that matter further as well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You affirm that Filioque is present in the original version of the creed from the council of 381?"

I consider this a possibility, the other one being that Filioque in the text is a doctrinally innocuous contamination from the explanatory creed of the First Council of Toledo. Bad memory for exact words, good memory for exact doctrine.

"Furthermore, you affirm that four of the five centers of the Church prior to Chalcedon and the formal Pentarchy, derive their origin and authority from St. Peter?"

Rome was head of the college of Apostles in Jerusalem before he left (Jerusalem), he was bishop in Antioch (Antioch) between Jerusalem and Rome, but Rome is where he left his papacy. His disciple and secretary St. Mark founded the see of Alexandria.

The question is not whether the centres existed since apostolic times, but whether there was a fourfold, later with Constantinople fivefold *division* of all Christendom between these since apostolic times.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. St. James was first bishop of Jerusalem, not St. Peter. St. Peter was bishop of Antioch for seven years. Thus, would not the patriarch of Antioch have the same authority as the patriarch of Rome, in accordance with your argument? In point of fact, if one affirms a Petrine source of authority for the four original centers, how then does primacy of authority rest with Rome?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"St. James was first bishop of Jerusalem, not St. Peter."

The first monarchic bishop, who came to episcopate there after the dispersion of the Apostles (twelve) - and in this first collective period, St. Peter was foremost of the ruling body.

"St. Peter was bishop of Antioch for seven years. Thus, would not the patriarch of Antioch have the same authority as the patriarch of Rome, in accordance with your argument?"

St. Peter was personally pope (Matthew 16:19, John 21:17) to the end of his life. He remained Pope over St. James, when leaving him in Jerusalem, and he remained Pope over St. Evodius when he succeeded him in Antioch. He could not remain pope over St. Linus after dying, by contrast. Therefore, St. Linus inherited the papacy not just in Rome, but over the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. You have presented the history of the early Church as understood by the Latins. Obviously, Orthodoxy disputes that interpretation. Let us however, work within the framework that you have presented. Why would the patriarch of Rome have final authority over the other sees, under this scenario? Why would the successor to St. Peter in Antioch have either more or less authority, than his successor in Rome? Both inherited the throne of Peter in your view.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not really the throne of Peter as Pope.

Evodius did not inherit papacy, Linus did.

Evodius, like James, could only inherit local episcopacy and possibly (if such) a patriarchal division, since both took over when St. Peter left and remained Pope.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Yes but why? Why would St. Linus and his successor have the final authority? Simply because St. Peter became bishop of Rome as the third and last of his bishopric, this would not grant any special status to Rome.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It would, because he could not leave papacy behind when not dying and had to leave papacy behind when dying.

(Btw, Jerusalem was not technically a bishopric of St. Peter, he was there before inventing monarchic episcopacy for Jerusalem, as ruling with the other 11).

Eugene Santalov

Hans-Georg Lundahlit appears your basis for denying the story of St. Peter the Aleut is all in your own rhetoric, part of which is trying to discredit an account by Saint Herman. A logical chain of suppositions, but with errors, and all can be plausibly denied, as your guesses may simply be incorrect, while St. Herman's account, based on what was told him by the surviving Aleuts has never been doubted, except by those who have an agenda, like trying to whitewash the Latin criminals. Aleuts were simple and honest people, and St. Herman had the discernment to trust or not trust their accounts, better than your and my fallen human logic, being much further away from God's Grace than he was/is. I'll trust St. Herman's account before any modern fallen logic. The monks in San Francisco were trying to convince the Aleuts to be baptized, and when they refused they made an example of St. Peter. This is surely not a unique way for Catholics to treat Native Americans. What was the logic? Kill the body and thus save the soul or other souls. It goes well with inquisition and other atrocities, typical for medieval Catholicism, especially in the new world. There was a good reason the pope even issued a public apology for the treatment of Native Americans by Catholic invaders

Survival International* : Pope** apologizes for Catholic church’s crimes against indigenous peoples
July 15, 2015
https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/10845

Then we have mistreatment of Native American children even in recent centuries and even recent decades, resulting in killing hundreds of them, while supposedly trying to enlighten them. Unfortunately there are plenty of materials to support the Latin monks' attitudes and even methods in S. F. in those times. The common grave in Mission Dolores most likely contains the martyr's holy relics. Perhaps one day they'll let them be exhumed.

The Cougar*** : The Catholic Church must take responsibility for its anti-Indigenous history
By Anna Baker June 11, 2021
http://thedailycougar.com/2021/06/11/the-catholic-church-must-take-responsibility-for-its-anti-indigenous-history/

Hans-Georg Lundahl some interesting research results here. You can even buy a book to learn of Latin monks' atrocities in more detail. A lot of it around the same time of the martyrdom of St. Peter. I doubt you have done anything that comes even remotely close to this depth of research to substantiate your claim, denying the crime. We can talk about one murder, or we can talk about thousands, which makes the one of St. Peter just one of a multitude in a statistic. Denying a heretical nature of an organization, which committed crimes in such proportions, is simply emotional denial, devoid of objectivity

The Lesser-Told Story Of The California Missions
By Caitlin Harrington - Published on March 20, 2016.
https://hoodline.com/2016/03/the-lesser-told-story-of-the-california-missions/

Amazon : A Cross of Thorns: The Enslavement of California’s Indians by the Spanish Missions Paperback – April 1, 2017
by Elias Castillo (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Cross-Thorns-Enslavement-Californias-Missions/dp/1610353048

Amazing revelations of the current "infallible" head of the church

wp Pope** Francis says evolution is real and God is no wizard
By Ishaan Tharoor - October 28, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. EDT
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/

footnote interruption

* They may be well meaning, but are they good historians? Is a publication there, on non-environmental issues, worth more than a blog post?

** The title "Pope" not given to the actual one who died on Tuesday, 2 August, but to the "Intruder Bishop Jorge" who blocked His Holiness from residing in Santa Marta

*** The Cougar : "tout un programme" they say here! Also, as he commented "even in recent decades" that's well after Spaniards ruled or Catholics had an Inquisition with death penalties, so totally irrelevant for Peter the Aleut. And while he's not dogma (with us, canonisations are at least very close to), the topic was "preservation of sainthood and spirituality" as brought up by Eugene Santalov himself. The most doubtful adverb being "even" as a comparison of equation with the days of Herman of Alaska. St. Pius X issued an encyclical to denounce contemporary cruelties to Indians.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Let us return to the Filioque controversy. If the first Council of Toledo, which was not an Ecumenical Council, altered the creed of 381, that is illegitimate. The third council of 431 upheld the creed of the second council and decreed that the creed could not be altered in the absence of an ecumenical council.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Eugene Santalov "A logical chain of suppositions, but with errors, and all can be plausibly denied, as your guesses may simply be incorrect, while St. Herman's account, based on what was told him by the surviving Aleuts has never been doubted, except by those who have an agenda, like trying to whitewash the Latin criminals."

It has never been believed except by those having an agenda, like Russians (against the Spaniards) or Orthodox (to not discredit Orthodox Russians).

Whether an Encomienda constituted harsh slavery or not (I would be considering the proper answer not so), it does not in any way, shape or form involve 1) inquisitors judging people who could simply get expelled; 2) inquisitors judging people for the judgement that azymes are invalid matter; and 3) inquisitors replacing bonfire (or strangulation plus bonfire) with cutting someone into pieces.

So, whatever your book recommendations may be worth for or against Junípero Serra, Pope Michael has as far as I know not said anything about that "canonisation" it is no argument for Peter the Aleut getting killed as described.

As to your Washington Post link - Bergoglio is, as I mentioned Pope Michael, not my Pope. You can take Bergoglio up with people who take him for "Pope Francis" and that does not include me.*

footnote interruption

* To put two of the statements in the long sentence side by side, shorter:

Bergoglio alias "Pope Francis" is not my Pope.
Pope Michael is my Pope.

By now, was, he died 2.VIII.2022

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Why do you call Francis, "Pope Michael?"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman "If the first Council of Toledo, which was not an Ecumenical Council, altered the creed of 381, that is illegitimate"

The First Council is not altering any pre-existing creed, it is giving an explanatory creed condemning Priscillianism. It includes filioque.

The Third Council is not altering any pre-existing creed, it is reciting the creed of 381 with the Filioque as an introduction to its acts.

So, if the creed from 381 included Filioque, the Third Council of Toledo recited it correctly, and if not, between 400 and 589 one had contaminated the one from 381 (used in liturgy) with one phrase from the one of 400 (only explanatory to a controversy in the Toledo province).

"The third council of 431 upheld the creed of the second council"

But the preserved acts of 381 and 431 do not give us the text of it. So, from then we cannot tell whether it involved the Filioque or not.

The fourth council gives *us* the text, without the Filioque.

The question between 381 and 451, 381 and 589 is, where had the text been altered? I don't know.

I do know that the 381 text cannot have been meant to stamp Filioque (as a teaching) as heresy, since a council in communion with the Church in 400 is using Filioque in an explanatory creed and since St. Athanasius at least twice (in the Quicumque vult and in a letter) upheld that the Holy Ghost was neither Father, nor Son, but proceeding *from both.*

In the time of Charlemagne and Leo III, either Charlemagne had got the wrong text from for instance Spain or Leo III had got it from Byzantines.

And as to the disciplinary rule of 431, we have since then a Ecumenical council, Florence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Alex Coleman, they are definitely not the same person.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic, schismatic and arguably apostate who is sometimes termed "Pope Francis" - he comes from Argentina.

David Allen Bawden in 1990 (after the proof 1986 that Wojtyla was neither Catholic nor Pope) convoked an emergency conclave, got elected and took the papal name Michael. He lives in Kansas and may have lived in Oklahoma too.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am not familiar with this narrative. I am familiar with the narrative that Pope John was not actually elected by the College of Cardinals but rather a conservative protege of Pius XII.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You may know that by 1989 there were lots of people considering that "John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I" and by then also "John Paul II" were antipopes.

People thinking so were generally known as sedevacantist, and David Bawden was a sedevacantist who thought he had a right to proceed to do something about it. Which he did in 1990.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am familiar with the sedevacantists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, since 1990, there are also conclavists.

Pope Michael quickly got some rivals, seems he has lost all or most of them.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. If you state that the text of the Nicean-Constantinople creed of 381 has been altered, to remove Filioque, where is the evidence? That the fourth council did not include Filioque is evidence against it's orthodoxy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It cannot be evidence against its orthodoxy, it could also be evidence against a then and there unity about it.

Why cannot it be evidence against the orthodoxy? Because we have previous evidence for its orthodoxy.

"If you state ... where is the evidence?"
I was giving that as one of two alternatives.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. Is your position that Filioque is the consensus of the Fathers and that it was St. Photios who was the first to reject the teaching? Furthermore, you imply that our present text of Chalcedon has been altered. Am I understanding you correctly? As regards Florence, two points. Firstly, over a millennium intervened between the first council of toledo and the council of florence-ferrara. Thus, the western church upheld filioque for centuries in an illegitimate manner. Secondly, the eastern church only agreed to the council for pragmatic reasons. St. Mark of Ephesus alone remained true to Orthodoxy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My position is neither that Filioque was the consensus, nor that there was a consensus against it.

It quickly became consensus in the West.

Photius, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, followed the half and half rejection of St. John of Damascus. He had stated "we say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and we say that He is the Spirit of the Son, we say that He proceeds from the Father, but we do not say that He proceeds from the Son."

Which, again according to St. Thomas, would have been traceable to some Nestorians, I think Theodoret comes to mind.

"Firstly, over a millennium intervened between the first council of toledo and the council of florence-ferrara. Thus, the western church upheld filioque for centuries in an illegitimate manner."

In an illegal manner, as to the text in the creed.

If even so.

In the West, one would have been very keen on considering the Chalcedon text (with full article on Holy Spirit and that one without the Filioque) as a fraud. During basically all of these 1000 years.

The third council of Toledo recited the Nicene Creed with the Filioque simply as believing that was how Constantinople I had redacted it. There never was a decision to add Filioque to this liturgic creed, for them it had always been there.

The *first* council of Toledo did a special creed to be recited by converts from Priscillianism, it involves matters not adressed by the Nicene Creed.

It includes the Filioque, not as part of the Nicene Creed, but as part of the Catholic Faith. There was no ban on that in the Council of 381.

My point is, Filioque is traceable further back in time than any of its rejections, whether St. John of Damascus or Photius.

Alex Coleman

Hans-Georg Lundahl. The patristic consensus is key to resolving this longstanding dispute. In the West, Filioque did not become the consensus until the Photian Schism, although it had influence among the Latins, to be certain. My understanding from my studies, is as follows. The view of St. John Damascene is the consensus of the Holy Fathers. Namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. St. Thomas attributes this view to the Greeks and regards it as an error based upon obstinacy. He does indeed cite the view of the Nestorian, Theodoret of Cyrett. However, the view of Theodoret is in fact proof against Filioque. He accused St. Cyril of heresy for teaching Filioque, which indicates that the teaching was generally understood to be heretical in the 5th century. St. Gregory of Cyprus expounds upon this matter. He clarifies that the later Latin theologians misunderstood the teaching of the Greek Fathers and falsely accused them of teaching Filioque.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Gregory II of Cyprus (Greek: Γρηγόριος ο Κύπριος, 1241–1290) was Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople between 1283 and 1289."

He is NOT an impartial judge NOR from 5th C.

"The patristic consensus is key to resolving this longstanding dispute. In the West"

P a r d o n me? IN THE WEST?

Wait, bad punctuation. [On part of my reading, not his writing.]

The "patristic consensus" (tout court, not "in the West") is key to resolving this longstanding dispute" (also tout court, also not "in the West") PERIOD

Makes sense and the answer is simple : there is not one.

"In the West, Filioque did not become the consensus until the Photian Schism, although it had influence among the Latins, to be certain."

I would say it was *near* consensus with the locally small but prestigiuously important Byzantine contacts (Rome, Ravenna ....) holding out against getting it into the Creed. Including the famous example of Leo III (who didn't excommunicate Charlemagne for keeping it in the Creed).

Precisely as Constantinople and Antioch had a near or total consensus of "at least not de fide definita" or in other words "has nothing to do in the Creed"

"The view of St. John Damascene is the consensus of the Holy Fathers."

Not the words I quoted. You may have read lots more than the quote I saw through St. Thomas.

"Namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son."

As I recall it, it's a way of stating it that he attributes to not St. John of Damascus but to Kappadocians - who are on the Latin and Uniate side at least in the Photian quarrel.

"St. Thomas attributes this view to the Greeks and regards it as an error based upon obstinacy."

What exact work?

He would have used the phrase "the Greeks" (about Christians) as referring to:

• a) Byzantine Schismatics who despite the best efforts of the new Patriarchs of Constantinople hadn't come to Communion with Rome
• b) The Patrologiae Graeca, or what he knew of it from Moerbeke

Your quote sounds like a composite of what he would consider aboout A, with what he would quote from B agains A. Perhaps you need to look it up after a coffee.

"He does indeed cite the view of the Nestorian, Theodoret of Cyrett. However, the view of Theodoret is in fact proof against Filioque. He accused St. Cyril of heresy for teaching Filioque, which indicates that the teaching was generally understood to be heretical in the 5th century."

It indicates ANTIOCHIANS (or some) considered it heretical in the 5th C.

As Theodoret is heterodox, and St. Cyril as Orthodox as the First council of Toledo or St. Martin, you have now provided two witnesses For and just one, already known to be bad witness Against from the 5th C.