1) During the period both leading into Nicea and between Nicea and Constantinople with the Cappadocian clarifications.
2) The Great Schism of 1024
3) The Reformation
These three stand as the primary schisms, reconciled (the first) or not (the second and third).
OK.
And there is NO way there is Apostolicity attached to the Filioque debate. What emerged was the whims of first one Roman Bishop, and then an intermittent succession of Bishops. It had never been an issue until Rome made it an issue of conflict. There had been no Filioque until Rome belatedly added it.
And a simple overview of history indicates it’s quite impossible. I’ve read EVERY Patristic writing extant available in English to the general public. The Filioque was a late innovation.
Can you clarify then how it would be possible to detect an oral tradition through the examination of written historical records?
Yeah, and then Rome went rogue and demanded the Filioque be included and imposed it upon the East and all others over an oddly vascillating period of time. There is no characteristic of the Filioque addition being Apostolic.
What do you mean by, "an oddly vascillating period of time," and by, "characteristic of the Filioque?"
No. History and the Patristics are far from silent, and none of that is fiction.
And I do not.
Then I find that odd. Your position on the office of Bishop is the same as all Protestants then, that all bishops are all together corrupt and that the office is irreparably invalid. Note that my hypothetical /conditional includes the possibility of all the bishops coming around in some way to each others's way of thinking, and not exclusively the possibility that simply the eastern bishops 'et al.' would 'return' to Catholicism and to the subordination to the papacy (wrt the papacy being 'first among equals' only), nor just the possibility that 'Rome' recants. It could be some arrangement or agreement that none of us has ever even imagined, let alone heard of before. So I find your position odd. Why wouldn't you instead long for the Church's valid bishops all reuniting together again as it was for so many centuries, starting right from Jerusalem in AD 33 on Pentecost? To me, that's the legendary 'New Testament Church' that so many Bible thumping Protestants try to duplicate in their own lives and practices (a very good goal in concept imo, if not in aim); all the bishops together with each other, in communion, teaching uniformly, just as the Apostles designed.
I never used that word, and that's not what I'm talking about. True and valid unity must be founded upon authentic Christian /Apostolic teaching, not through compromise or 'dumbing down' this or that teaching, just that everybody can agree to something.
, and that’s all Rome is capable of at this point.
'Rome' cannot reunite all the bishops unilaterally, and I never suggested that 'Rome' could. This will require free cooperation on the part of all the valid bishops.
It’s what is pervading the current landscape. The Pope has more unity with Islam than with the East, and it’s deteriorating.
Islam denies both Christ's Resurrection and that He is God /the Trinity. At least all the bishops agree on these two things, along with many other things, but to compare this with Islam pushes that envelope too far imo.
And the issue is that I CAN affirm from years of exegetical and lexical perusal in fasting and prayer according to Patristic example and doctrine that I can confirm the authenticity of the Eastern teaching over the innovations of Rome in this regard, and it’s unequivocal.
You're clearly convinced in your own mind.
So I too defer to Apostolicity, but to the Apostolic claims and traditions that actually agree with scripture rather than usurping it.
Me too.
So it’s not my doctrinal predispositions that determine my affiliation (as you insisted earlier), but that my doctrinal predispositions are determined by Holy Tradition as is ALSO explicated in the divinely inspired text.
But the bishops are in that same text.
And the Vatican is one of three city-state entities from which the onslaught of the elitist global agenda is issuing forth. The Vatican is wholly complicit in ALL the history of the secret societies and all else that is building toward One-World everything with Ecumenistic Religion as the third leg of the Communitarian stool.
Beyond the scope of this thread, but the only way I see anything like "One-World everything" happening is for the US to resume annexations (which is something I support). And the First Amendment does and will continue to prevent government /police from ever establishing any religion.
The corrupt fractional reserve world banking systems are related to the corruption of Rome, so Apostolicity isn’t even present in the Ecclesiological ranks of the Romanized Church.
The office of bishop was never specified as having any expertise in any other practice beyond the valid celebration of the sacraments, and of teaching the entire Christian faith in all matters of faith and morals. So that would exclude banking, government, etc.
I have 20+ years of irrefutable volumes of research that indicate the Vatican is the seat of nothing but Antichrist with a mask provided by institutionalized corruption with a fascade. So you’re not going to get any traction with me by insisting Rome is anything else, much less Apostolic.
The papacy is Apostolic, Peter's Roman pastorate is Apostolic. He held that office, and the office itself didn't die with him. You can disagree that the office is valid at the moment, but you can't reasonably disagree that it is Peter's own Roman pastorate that he vacated when he died, that the Pope today holds, and that in this sense the office is Apostolic. At least, not imo.
If it’s above your paygrade, then it might be better to remain competely silent and resign it all to those whose paygrade it is.
:idunno:
I cannot and will not agree or concede. I know far too much of the bowels of Papal and Roman corruption. The East remains the last standing bastion of authentic orthodoxy and catholicism.
You say this, and yet you make no plans to be received into their communion. Just for comparison, I work with a Catholic priest who is in communion with his bishop (my bishop), and I am on the way to full communion.
And I am able to connect the Lutheran Confessions to the East and reconcile all the apparent diversions presumed between them. This is why I can either recite the Creed with or without the Filioque, because I know the exegetical and lexical foundations for why there was a distinction.
There IS an aspect of all of this that is NOT beyond ANY Believer’s alleged “paygrade”. Not the decisions for the Body, but about which “side” to yield to as authority. I can’t and won’t yield to Rome and her antichrist corruptions. The Vatican is anathema.
OK, but you also don't yield to any bishops. You make yourself into a bishop instead, and you teach and yield to yourself. That idea is not scriptural.
