Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cyprian who wrote (10587)	4/8/2006 4:43:35 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Re: ...it is incorrect for you to state that, "all Orthodox Christians proclaim themselves Judeo-Christian" Perhaps this is an Orthodox persepctive you have never come across? The Frankish Papacy's Involvement in Judeo-Masonry Your theological argumentation is a bit captious as it erroneously suggests that the schism between Orthodox Christians and other Christian churches --or pseudo-Christian churches as you'd have it-- stems entirely from their connection/relation with Judaism and the Jews?!? First, let me remind you that for Christianity's first 1,000 years there was no schism and no theological casus belli between the Eastern Church and her Latin sister church in Western Europe. As the papers below show, the two churches parted company mainly out of (geo-)political reasons that were, in turn, disguised as theological --byzantine-- disputes (the filioque,...) The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox: 1054-1954 by Archbishop Michael of North and South America Exactly nine hundred years have passed since the separation of the two great Churches of Christendom when the Western Church broke away from the Eastern Orthodox. Many still seek the cause of this most unfortunate division. Actually, it can be found in the difference concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome. Until the Fifth Century A.D. there was not even a single instance of dissension or antagonism between the two Churches. The Bishop of Rome had always been considered the First in the order of hierarchy. This was a natural consequence of the position of Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Byzantine State its Bishop assumed the second position in the ranks of the hierarchy. The third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) designates the position of honor of the Bishop of Constantinople as second only to that of the Bishop of Rome. This decision of the Council is based on the premise that Constantinople is new Rome, and, incidentally, it has been retained among the titles of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This indicates, as was brought out at the Council, that the political importance of the city defined the honorary status of its hierarchy. The same fact was repeated with emphasis by the now renown 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon in 451. At that time, the Bishop of Constantinople was acclaimed as equal in honor to the Bishop of Rome. In the meantime, erroneous beliefs began to circulate in the Church of the West. Of these, the most serious was an addition to the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople concerning the Holy Spirit. The Church of Rome wanted to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds and from the Son. In Latin, this addition was accomplished by the word, “filioque.” [...] orthodoxresearchinstitute.org The Eastern Schism Catholic Encyclopedia on CD-ROM [...] There is not really any question of doctrine involved. It is not a heresy, but a schism. The Decree of Florence made every possible concession to [Orthodox Christians'] feelings. There is no real reason why they should not sign that Decree now. They deny papal infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, they quarrel over purgatory, consecration by the words of institution, the procession of the Holy Ghost, in each case misrepresenting the dogma to which they object. It is not difficult to show that on all these points their own Fathers are with those of the Latin Church, which asks them only to return to the old teaching of their own Church. That is the right attitude towards the Orthodox always. They have a horror of being latinized, of betraying the old Faith. One must always insist that there is no idea of latinizing them, that the old Faith is not incompatible with, but rather demands union with the chief see which their Fathers obeyed. In canon law they have nothing to change except such abuses as the sale of bishoprics and the Erastianism that their own better theologians deplore. Celibacy, azyme bread, and so on are Latin customs that no one thinks of forcing on them. They need not add the Filioque to the Creed; they will always keep their venerable rite untouched. Not a bishop need be moved, hardly a feast (except that of St. Photius on 6 Feb.) altered. All that is asked of them is to come back to where their Fathers stood, to treat Rome as Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom treated her. It is not Latins, it is they who have left the Faith of their Fathers. There is no humiliation in retracing one's steps when one has wandered down a mistaken road because of long-forgotten personal quarrels. They too must see how disastrous to the common cause is the scandal of the division. They too must wish to put an end to so crying an evil. And if they really wish it the way need not be difficult. For, indeed, after nine centuries of schism we may realize on both sides that it is not only the greatest it is also the most superfluous evil in Christendom. newadvent.org

To: Cyprian who wrote (10587)	4/8/2006 5:04:47 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Follow-up.... Cyprian, how do you reconcile your Orthodox Christian Historical Timeline() with the so-called Neolithic Revolution(s)? Clue: The dawn of the Neolithic Age* Fourteen thousand years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age, a new lifestyle, known to archeologists as the Natufian culture, began to emerge in the Middle East. The Ice Age was coming to an end and temperatures were warming very quickly. Food became available in relative abundance for the first time in thousands of years. Instead of having to travel long distances to find food, some groups were able to live in the same place all year round. People started to build permanent dwellings. By 10,000 BC, the end of the Younger Dryas period, they were discovering that certain animals, such as goats, sheep, cattle and pigs, had temperaments and dispositions that made them easy to manage within close proximity to their dwellings. They selected and cultivated certain grasses, such as oats, wheat and barley, which provided nourishment to larger groups of people. These plants became common anywhere there was human settlement, eclipsing all other plant-food sources. They discovered how to store and preserve food over the harsh winter months. Thus, farming began and a new age, the Neolithic Age, was ushered in. The Effects of the Neolithic Revolution The move from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a sedentary farming lifestyle did not take place overnight. Neither was it unique to the Middle East: Latin America and China experienced totally independent Neolithic Revolutions at later periods in time. In fact, it can be argued that in the beginning, it was in many ways an inferior lifestyle to hunter-gathering, since settled people were easier targets for attack, their nutrition undoubtedly suffered due to lack of a balanced diet, and they were more likely to suffer diseases. However, by 7000 BC, it was the dominant occupation in the Middle East, and it was already taking hold in Southern Europe and Northern Africa. For those people affected, the change that had taken place was enormous. The changes were so profound they live on with us today. [...] bbc.co.uk (*) orthodoxfaith.com