My Friend, there is no significance to ask me if I am willing to call anyone a heretic when Pope Leo III of Rome himself referred to the Filioque as \"heresy\" in 809 A.D...let today\'s Roman Catholics figure out their own historical flip-flopping on this issue. It\'s really not my problem that they flip-flopped, but I have no problem pointing out the flip-flopping to them if they can\'t see it. And if it is the truth, why should we mask it and be \"diplomatic\" about mentioning it? That\'s my entire point above. The filioque clause changes the definition of the Holy Trinity, which in effect really means we are believing in a different God altogether at this point. Who knows if even Christ\'s mention of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being unforgivable includes the filioque clause? For me to \"overlook\" the filioque clause without severe protest is like silent \"acceptance\" of a heretical idea. No, I will protest again and again, and I will even write it on the wall, like blessed Pope Leo III did in Rome in 809.
As for the term Axiom, it is defined as a concept that is accepted but can not be necessarily proven. If your profile is correct and you are indeed 14 years old, perhaps you have not yet dealt with Geometric proofs in school, so it would be understandable that you are unclear about the meaning of the word \"axiom\". Without accepting the definition of a \"point\", or a \"straight line\", it would not be possible to build upon Geometry as a mathematical discipline. Likewise, if we can not agree on the Creed (i.e. what it is we really believe in), how can we proceed in any further discussions? Here are the historic facts, my friend:
1) Pope Leo III in 809 was totally Orthodox, because he believed in the same Creed we do, and posted it on silver plaques in St. Peter\'s Church. Pope Benedict or any Vatican official can not deny that this happened.
2) Pope Leo III condemned the \"filioque\" clause adopted by the Aix-la-Chapelle council as HERESY in 809. No one can deny this either.
3) If Papal Primacy existed in 809, the Bishops attending the Aix-la-Chapelle conference would have rescinded their \"filioque\" adaptation, because as we know today, all Roman Catholic bishops/cardinals take their orders directly from the Pope. If they disagree, they get axed. Because nobody listened to Pope Leo III, it proves that the Pope of 809 AD, did NOT have enforcing jurisdiction (Primacy) over the bishops of the West, which is exactly the way the Orthodox Church is today (i.e. the Patriarch can not boss other bishops around, but it takes an entire council to dethrone someone)
4) Pope Nicholas I (858-867) eventually came up with the idea of Primacy.
5) Pope Benedict considers himself a \"successor\" of Pope Leo III, but does not openly condemn the filioque as heresy, as his successor did. This means we have inconsistent \"succession\", which is by default a situation that occurs in any heresy.
6) In 1870, the concept of Papal Infallibility was adopted by the Vatican, which was surprising, because already, the dogmatic inconsistency between Pope Leo III and other Popes had to automatically mean that one of them was wrong.
Thus, if we look at the above points, Primacy was NOT consistent throughout the ages in Rome, and NEITHER was the \"filioque\" clause. Neither of these concepts can be proven by the Vatican as being consistently traced through successive Popes back to the Apostles (we just disproved it here). From that point on, if we want any fruitful dialogue, we have to really press hard on the Roman Catholic Church to adequately explain these dogmatic inconsistencies in its theoretical \"apostolic succession\". They changed, plain and simple. Let\'s not be blind or naive, but let\'s slam them and their flip-flopping trail into to the theological wall for once (just like St. Markos Eugenikos and Pope Leo III of Rome did), instead of being the submissive side all the time. The inconsistencies that they need to explain are obvious, and we are sitting around playing submissive in all these \"Dialogues\" and \"Meetings\", and wasting time posing in front of TV cameras talking about Re-Unification without focusing on substance. Christ wants bravery, not cowardice, and Christian bravery includes humility and repentance as part of \"self-denial\", and repentance is all about acknowledging errors of the past.
Giannis
P.S. - the Pater Hmwn is the \"Our Father\"
Be the first person to like this.