/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

<9 - From Florence to the Modern Era

- Martin Luther (1483-1546), Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), and Martin Chemnitz (1522-86)

- John Calvin (1509-64)

- Patriarch Jeremiah II (1572-79, 1580-84, 1586-95) and the Tübingen Theologians

- The Sigillion of 1583 and Maximos Margounios (1549-1602)

- The Synod of Brest

- Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1589-1639), Cyril Lukaris (1572-1637), and the Age of the Orthodox Confessions

- Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches

- The Bonn Conferences (1874-76)

- Papal Encyclicals on Unity and the Orthodox Response

- Boris Bolotov

<10 - The Twentieth and Twenty-first Centuries

- Orthodox Ecumenism and the Old Catholic-Anglican Dialogues

- Orthodox Theology: Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944), Vladimir Lossky (1903-58), and the Neo-Palamites

- Catholic Theology: Karl Rahner (1904-84), Yves Congar (1904-95), and the Filioque in France

- Protestant Theology: Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Jürgen Moltmann

- Bilateral and Multilateral Dialogues

- Catholic-Orthodox Dialogues and Statements: 1995-2003

THE PAPACY: SOURCES AND HISTORY OF A DEBATE

<1 - The Historical Peter

- Simon the Fisherman

- The Call and the Name

- Simon Peter: Confession and Commission

- Peter and the Twelve

- Peter's Failings

- Resurrection to Pentecost

- Peter in the Jerusalem Church

- Peter's Hidden Years

- Peter in Rome

- The Tomb

<2 - Peter in Scripture

- Paul

- Mark

- Matthew

- Luke-Acts

- John

- The Petrine Epistles

- The Apocrypha

<3 - Peter in the Exegesis of the Fathers

- Peter - Model of Christian Virtues

- Peter - A Man in Need of Forgiveness

- Matthew 16: The Typological Interpretation

- Matthew 16: The Eastern Interpretation

- Matthew 16: The Christological Interpretation

- Matthew 16: The Roman Interpretation

- John 21:15-19

- Leo the Great

<4 - The Church of Rome in the Patristic Era

- Rome After Peter

- The Conciliar Legislation: Nicea and Sardica

- The Conciliar Legislation: Constantinople

- Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon

- The Legacy of Leo

- The Emperor Justinian to Pope Gregory the Great

<5 - The Papacy from the Seventh through Tenth Centuries

- The Byzantine Papacy and the Monothelite Controversy

- Iconoclasm and the Franks

- Photius of Constantinople and the So-Called Photian Schism

- The Tenth Century

<6 - The Age of the Great Schism and the Gregorian Reform

- Prelude to Schism

- The Great Schism

- The Gregorian Reform

- Dialogue and Debate during the Crusading Era

<7 - The Fourth Crusade to the Eve of the Council of Florence

- The Fourth Crusade (1204) and Its Aftermath

- The Road to Lyons

- The Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Aftermath

- Papal and Imperial Negotiations - The Fourteenth-Century Dynamic

- The Road to Ferrara-Florence

<8 - The Council of Ferrara-Florence to Vatican I

- The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39)

- Florence to Brest

- Trent to Vatican I

- The First Vatican Council

<9 - The Twientieth and Twenty-First Centuries

- Orthodox and Catholic Theology After Vatican I

- The Pre-Conciliar Thaw

- The Second Vatican Council

- The Post-Conciliar Era: The Theologians

- The Post-Conciliar Era: Official Dialogues and Meetings

So, which sub-chapters would you be interested to see?

Note that I probably won't share too many of them, so pick carefully.

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=130112BB8B7F85F26D4E41F8D3A4C40E

You can just download the book here

>>576569

>not paying for it

The filioque is really good, and for me really helped confirm which church is the church God founded. Is the papacy similarly well written?

>>577096

>the real Church is the one that denies Christ His place

oh ye of little faith

>>577296

This isn’t even a valid criticism of Orthodoxy. It’s just petty.

Rather than be salty in this thread, go help out the Catholic begging for support in the catalog. May God have mercy on you and lead you to His One True Church.

>>577309

The One True Church does not deny Christ His place, you should know this.

>>577096

I haven't read it in full yet, but the parts I've read were fantastic. Is there anything you'd like to see?

>and for me really helped confirm which church is the church God founded.

Eeh, that's not how I felt. It helps to put a more clear and objective view of the continuity or lack thereof of both traditions with that of the undivided Church, but there's no point at which it can be said of either side "yep, that's super heretical." It's more likely than not that both sides have anathematized what is merely a caricature of what the other side believes, due to both sides ultimately resorting to a different system of describing the Trinity even if they use similar words.

The Papacy book seems to be much more thorny though, considering how complicated the history of the primacy of the Pope is. If I begome cadolig when I'm done reading it (I started today), I'll tell you.

>>576567

> with all the current scholarship we have to liberate these historical theologies and writings from denominational bias.

Yeah, yeah, but what about forced memes, turkposting, and slamming walls of patristic text without rhyme or context?

>>577296

The guy you replied to didn't even say which church the book convinced him of. He could very well be more attracted to Catholicism. You're rude.

>>577096

>>577296

For the record in Catholic was that not clear sorry

>>577623

>>577498

It's just that the filioque was a very thorny issue for me and the sum of arguments presented as well as the conduct of the Orthodox Church (not just as presented in this book but in this book as well) helped me out a lot. I'm this guy >>577296

>>577623

Begome gadolig dog bless!!!

>>577625

So these books are biased toward the West? Then why did an Orthodox person post them?

>>577626

Why does it have to be biased one way or the other? It's not apologetics, you know.

Why is nobody requesting anything from the books anyway? What's the point of posting in this thread if it's not to respond to my OP?

>>577633

Probably just on a different computer, or something.

>>577625

Oh, you've read both books?

Why was the filioque a more problematic issue for you than the papacy anyway?

heres the best historical take on the filioque

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm

filioque was mostly the fault of Charlemagne, neither the old Popes nor the Orthodox consider it legit.

>>576567

Is this how Patriarchs wrestle?

>>577633

Sorry I'm hopping between funposting and posting on my laptop in various locations, i don't mean to cause any trouble.

>>577715

What I was trying to say was I think the filioque was very well written, and whether or not it's biased towards the west or I merely found the western arguments presented more convincing, it helped clear up the issue of the filioque in my mind, in the sense of convincing me of the veracity of the Catholic position. I wonder if the book on the papacy is equally well researched and written. The reason the filioque was a thornier issue for me was that the arguments I had heard here and in person had left my rather conflicted on which side was in the right, which is why I bought the book in the first place. I don't find the papacy so troubling because I feel that it's necessary to have a head for the body to work - that is, for example, the council of Ferrara Florence. The fact that so many leaders of the church could accept the results and still the council be seen as false really damages the non papist position in my eyes. This even though there were natural issues of house arrest, and great pressure from the Turks etc..

Again I don't mean to cause trouble I should have lurked more I don't think I understand this boards culture yet.

>>577976

Im sorry if this is confused writing, I'm funposting again and Im extremely distracted. As for the OP, I would like to see a selection from the papacy if possible, perhaps from chapter 4, the last section. >>576567

>>577633

hi.

I'm not that guy.

>reading all that shit for a non-issue

fuggen stupid orthos, you know prides a sin ;>)

>>577976

>that is, for example, the council of Ferrara Florence. The fact that so many leaders of the church could accept the results and still the council be seen as false really damages the non papist position in my eyes

Both the "Pope alone is sufficient to declare a council ecumenical" Catholic stance and the "council becomes ecumenical by democratic vote" Orthodox stance don't tell the whole story of 1st millenium ecumenicity of councils.

Either way, the delegates at Florence who signed requested that synods be held back home to finalize the union. Only Constantinople held such a synod, and the union was un-done a few years later, so that wasn't very effective.

> and whether or not it's biased towards the west or I merely found the western arguments presented more convincing, it helped clear up the issue of the filioque in my mind

Good, that's the job of the book! It's not apologetics, but simply a more clear and objective look on the history of the debate.

Same goes for the Papacy book.

I suggest you get it for Christmas or something.

>>577978

Will do, but in a while, as I need a bit of rest right now.

>>578193

Ive put it on my list of books to read but I've gotten too many from friends and family so I've barred myself from buying books for a while. God bless anon, merry Christmas!

>>578362

Merry Christmas to you too. If you're curious, I recently talked with the author (Edward Siecienski), and he has started working on the third book. It will be about the history of azymes, Purgatory, and clerical beards.

>>578444

You should be ashamed of pointing to a sin that cries out to heaven being the norm in Christian countries as a denominational argument on Internet forum boards. If you truly weep for this reality, then you do not act as if you did.

>>577555

>>578444