Author Topic: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.  (Read 2032 times)

Wandile and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
I don't understand your analogy with OJ and what you mean by "Exhibit A - sedevacantist?" Can you expand your thought a bit so I can follow what your argument is?
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
I don't understand your analogy with OJ and what you mean by "Exhibit A - sedevacantist?" Can you expand your thought a bit so I can follow what your argument is?

I think he's trying to make some humorous analogy in order to say what he really thinks:
"evolutionist = intelligent / creationist = ignorant". 

We already went through this debate extensively in this thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,75881.0.html

It is dogma that God did not create death.  Evolutionists believe He did. 

It is the rationalist Western mind that insists on a proven scientific explanation for the origin of man.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 10:58:11 AM by PorphyriosK »

Offline WPM

  • Fan of the Jewish Holidays
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,610
  • Faith: Universal
  • Jurisdiction: United States
He can show you the basics of Creationism compared to Evolution debate.
The first 5 books of the To-Rah is Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
http://www.jewfaq.org/current.shtml
Sound the Ram's Horn and it shall be a New Moon Festival

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
I don't understand your analogy with OJ and what you mean by "Exhibit A - sedevacantist?" Can you expand your thought a bit so I can follow what your argument is?

Exactly, just like filioque and clown masses.

Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
I don't understand your analogy with OJ and what you mean by "Exhibit A - sedevacantist?" Can you expand your thought a bit so I can follow what your argument is?

I think he's trying to make some humorous analogy in order to say what he really thinks:
"evolutionist = intelligent / creationist = ignorant".

Keep trying, you'll get there.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Online Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
@Rohzek
Quote
Spell out step by step how Filioque leads to clown masses. They had it for 1200 years more or less and only recently got clown masses, which are actually not the norm. I want to see how you got to your conclusion.
You are asking me the question while having the answer in your quote, which makes me think further clarification on what i wrote would be a waste of time with you.

Quote
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all.
This is bad, you put Xavier in bad light for the one thing he have done correct - accept creation. It is actually quite admirable to confess that God created the heavens and the earth in this wicked age of delusion (Rev 20:7-8).


Quote
I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
But you are forced under the pain of anathema, it is a Church dogma declared throughout the seven ecumenical councils, most notably the sixth which anathemized origen for denying creation and also the seventh which ratified some ancient canons that directly speak of death not existing before sin.

So quite frankly i do not know what business you have running a blog about theology, church councils, giving links to your materials when your basic belief system is atheism. You are arguing about complicated matters in details yet basic scripture verses like (Luke 3:23-38) are completely out of your radar. If you do not get something as simple as that correct, who know what other hidden traps there are in your materials ? And here you are, making fun of everyone you disagree with .. ok.

Maybe you should start by getting the basic tenets of christianity correctly first.



« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 03:13:18 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
@Rohzek
Quote
Spell out step by step how Filioque leads to clown masses. They had it for 1200 years more or less and only recently got clown masses, which are actually not the norm. I want to see how you got to your conclusion.
You are asking me the question while having the answer in your quote, which makes me think further clarification on what i wrote would be a waste of time with you.

Quote
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all.
This is bad, you put Xavier in bad light for the one thing he have done correct - accept creation. It is actually quite admirable to confess that God created the heavens and the earth in this wicked age of delusion (Rev 20:7-8).


Quote
I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
But you are forced under the pain of anathema, it is a Church dogma declared throughout the seven ecumenical councils, most notably the sixth which anathemized origen for denying creation and also the seventh which ratified some ancient canons that directly speak of death not existing before sin.

So quite frankly i do not know what business you have running a blog about theology, church councils, giving links to your materials when your basic belief system is atheism. You are arguing about complicated matters in details yet basic scripture verses like (Luke 3:23-38) are completely out of your radar. If you do not get something as simple as that correct, who know what other hidden traps there are in your materials ? And here you are, making fun of everyone you disagree with .. ok.

Maybe you should start by getting the basic tenets of christianity correctly first.

Point me to where I ever denied creation, oh my sweet little Dominican.

Also, your argument is so entirely fallacious concerning the filioque and clown masses. It rests on the idea that because clown masses came after the filioque, then the filioque must be the cause. Let's try this one: World War 2 happened after Jesus. Therefore, Jesus caused World War 2. See how ridiculous that is?

As for my blog:

Quote
As for the obvious, I am but a simple layman in every sense of the term, so take what I say with a grain of salt. If you are seriously looking for professionally rigorous content, then I would suggest going to your nearest public library and reading a lot of literature for some time or speaking with your priest. https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/about/

Furthermore, the only person here that I've mocked is just you. You're the one being unnecessarily abrasive to the Catholics here. Let me bold the key words here:

Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.

Man, its almost like I don't even really believe in this analogy; that I put it on the same level as your utterly outlandish filioque = clown mass connection.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 05:18:39 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 603
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

Yes, that is what Vanhyo said. Now let me tell you who caused World War 2...

There is a lot of space between the filioque and clown masses. One is gonna have to do better to make the connection and to say the filioque necessarily leads to clown masses.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 05:46:09 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,656
  • A well-sexed theologian
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

Yes, that is what Vanhyo said. Now let me tell you who caused World War 2...

Moses caused the Holocaust.
This post gave me autism.

Since when has a Hierarch done anything for you? . . .

Apparently you can get the Juice or Power from a certain Icon.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

Yes, that is what Vanhyo said. Now let me tell you who caused World War 2...

Moses caused the Holocaust.

Should have known he was a double agent for the Egyptians. Just look at his name for goodness sake.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Online Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
One principle has been explained adequately by Xavier.

Lastly do not confuse Principlater (principally in English) with principle in the Florentine decree. The former refers to the concept of ultimate origin of the procession of The Holy Spirit. The second refers to the object of origin of going forth from the vantage point of The Holy Spirit. An example of the two views can be:

There are three candles lit. The first is on fire and lights that second and second lights the third

- The third flame is lit ultimately by the first as without the first, the second would not be lit which lights the third. Thus the third flame proceeds principally (Principalter) from the first.

- Since the second directly lights the third, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the second and comes from it. Additionally, since the second could not light the third without the first, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the first and second flames. Thus they first and second constitute one principle of the third as they together (from the first through the second)  light the third.

Your analogy isn’t even consistent with Thomas on the subject insofar as he argues that the Spirit proceeds from the Father both immediately and mediately in ST I, 36, iii, ad. 1, giving the example of Abel being born of Adam and Eve (though he admits this material example is somewhat inept). In your example, the third flame proceeds from the first only mediately. For your example to be consistent in general with Thomistic thought, the first and second candles as a single principle with respect to the faculty of lighting the third candle should both light the third candle, the second candle somehow having received the faculty to light the third candle from the first candle which properly has this faculty (indeed in ad. 2 of the same question, Thomas glosses principaliter to refer to the fact that the power of spiration is proper to the Father while the Son has this power from the Father).

Well this is just very wrong in so far as my analogy was meant to demonstrate principle and principalter. Not principalter vs mediate. But go on...
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 08:34:53 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Online Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

Quote
In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820706_munich_en.html

You’re just plain wrong here. Catholic doctrine attributes causality but motnultimate causality. That’s where you get confused and end up becoming rude in your frustration.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
246The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

Quote
The Father isn't just principle without principle for Catholicism.
The more we speak the more it’s becoming apparent you don’t truly understand what this phrase means.

Quote
In the absolute sense, he is the only source.
Absolutely, yes

Quote
Making the Son a cause of the hypostatic coming into being of the Holy Spirit violates Divine Simplicity.
It actually has no bearing in so far as the opposite relations do not touch or harm the divine essence. This is explained thoroughly by St Thomas.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Online Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Quote
Quote
In the absolute sense, he is the only source.
Absolutely, yes
Correction: I meant to say “ultimately”.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 08:55:17 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

Quote
In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820706_munich_en.html

You’re just plain wrong here. Catholic doctrine attributes causality but motnultimate causality. That’s where you get confused and end up becoming rude in your frustration.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
246The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

Quote
The Father isn't just principle without principle for Catholicism.
The more we speak the more it’s becoming apparent you don’t truly understand what this phrase means.

Quote
In the absolute sense, he is the only source.
Absolutely, yes

Quote
Making the Son a cause of the hypostatic coming into being of the Holy Spirit violates Divine Simplicity.
It actually has no bearing in so far as the opposite relations do not touch or harm the divine essence. This is explained thoroughly by St Thomas.

Then your understanding of God precludes his divine simplicity. We're talking about hypostaseos here, not just the ousia. Saying it doesn't effect the ousia but that the person of the Holy Spirit still requires two contributions is nonetheless a partition, imperfect, and unworthy of being called God. You're falling into the very fallacy that St. Photius argued against, (and I'm not even sure people were even attributing causality to the Son among the Frankish episcopate in the 9th century). And it also appears that there is a contradiction between the Catholic statement given at Munich and the Catholic statement given at Florence.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 11:12:21 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Eamonomae

  • The Publican who hathn’t repented
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 800
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me a sinner!
  • Faith: Truth seeker
  • Jurisdiction: Schism
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

Yes, that is what Vanhyo said. Now let me tell you who caused World War 2...

Moses caused the Holocaust.

And Chalcedon caused the fall of the Byzantine Empire.
“As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.”

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 902
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, ReUnite Your Church!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Did Adam and Eve cause Jesus and Mary to come?  ;D Anyway, yes, Vanhyo and I, disagreeing on other things, do indeed agree that Adam and Eve are the first parents of the whole human race, and were miraculously made by God One and Triune by special Divine Creation less than 10,000 years ago, for all Sacred Scripture and all Sacred Tradition, both Latin and Greek, and Eastern, Western, Roman, Byzantine, Syrian, Cappadocian and every other Christian Tradition, lol, have handed it down to us; and this was almost unanimously believed by nearly all Christians for some 1800 years.

It is true that, with the advent of anti-Christian atheistic and agnostic Modernism and impiety after that, which wanted to attack both the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and Divine Authority of the OT, the Apostolic Authorship of the Gospels and Divine Inspiration of the whole New Testament,  which Rome was combating mightily especially under Pope St. Pius X.(schism, heresy, apostasy, atheism; that was the sad order of the fall of man respectively, as the ancient Apostles and even Fathers had warned us would happen in the last days), even some good Christians mistakenly believe- what atheistic evolutionists want to dupe us all into believing, that gradually we may "evolve" into atheists! - that Almighty God, the Supreme Creator of the Whole Universe, Who produced all things ex nihilo by His Sole Divine Fiat, allegedly "needed evolution" to Create us.

Let such Christians be willing to accept the judgment of a future joint Ecumenical Council on evolution. Perhaps Nicaea III will treat of it in 2025.

Evolutionism is basically an atheistic pagan fable designed to lie against God's Special and Supernatural Act of Creation. More on that elsewhere.

1: On St. Gregory and Trinitarian Analogies: Anyway, thanks Rohzek, for your response, but I would appreciate if you answer the text and analogy of St. Gregory already adduced earlier. You had said, I believe that the 3 flames analogy seems deficient, but St. Gregory used it. The way St. Gregory used it suggests he believes the First Fire Causes or Produces the Secod Fire directly, but the Third Fire or Third Hypostasis - the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, as the Greek Church confesses - St. Gregory says is produced by the Father intermediately through the Son. This alone preserves Distinction of Person.

Do you ask other analogies? The Sun produces its light and its heat as in a certain way being one with its substance; as God produces His Word and His Spirt as One Essence with Him. But while the production of the Word is immediately from the Father, the production of the Spirit is immediately from the Father and mediately through the Son, as the Fathers confess; and as we may say that sun causes light and heat, but in such a way that sunlight is one principle of the heat:. Cause and principle are being used in different ways, and cause itself is being used in different ways; for there is such a thing as absolute and ultimately causality, which belongs to the Father alone, since the Father is the sole Cause of His Son and His Spirit. And the secondary and dependent causality or "production" by which the Greek Fathers say the Spirit's Hypostasis comes from Father through Son.

The Son is Caused by the First Cause, says St. Gregory - that shows He has a secondary causation. Relative to the Father, His Hypostasis is produced. Relative to the Father and the Son, the Spirit's Hypostasis is produced. This alone distinguishes the 3 Persons, St. Gregory says.

2: Demonsrration from Early Patristic and Conciliar Authority, and Theological Reason: Even theological reason already proves St. Gregory is right, beside his authority and his experience of these sublime Divine Truths; for, as we have discussed earlier, Pope St. Damasus used Filioque in a Roman Synod to refute Macedonains, probably at around the same time the Council of Constantinople; Pope St. Leo the Great used it against a Sabellian sect that denied distinction of Person; St. Athanasius (or St. Ambrose or St. Vincent if you will) used it in the Atahanasian Creed, about Hypostaes. Now, refutation of Sabellians proves Hypostases proceed.

Please read what Cardinal St. Robert says in the OP link about St. Athanasius and this Creed, and how St. Gregory Nazianzen for the East and St. Augustine for the West already testified to its Athansian Authorship, dear Rohzek. Your comments on those words of St. Robert?

St. Anselm and St. Thomas also both use a form of the argument against Sabellians, when this difficulty had cropped up, I would say, rather ironically.

Here's the Syllogism of St. Thomas Aquinas. Let him answer who can.

1. The Persons are distinguished only by Hypostatic relations.
2. If there were no hypostatic relation between Son and Spirit, they would therefore be but One Person Only; but this is heretical and destroys Faith.
3. Hence, it must needs be confessed that the Holy Spirit, as the Third Hypostasis in the Holy Trinity, is produced by the Father through the Son.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 04:35:33 AM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 902
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, ReUnite Your Church!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
3: On St. Augustine and Divine Simplicity: Niw, you adduce a theological reason of your own, Divine Simplicity. But what is Divine Simplicity anyway? St. Augustine proves it from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition like this: Holy  Writ says the Son is the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Life and the Love of the Father and Son. But the Son and the Spirit are the Divine Essence. Hence, Wisdom, Love, Power and all the Divine Attributes (when we consider them ad intra in Their Source, or within the Holy Trinity) are the Divine Essence. [In the external manifestation of those attributes, what we call ad extra operations of the Holy Trinity, the attributes differ in their manifestation]

Thus, Scripture itself says God is Love, for example. That means the Essence of God is Love. And that is Divine Simplicity in a nutshell.

Now, you argue hypostatic procession contradicts divine simplicity, but this does not follow at all, and is refuted by the authority of St. Augustine himself who taught both, as earlier documented. Even St. Palamas used St. Augustine's analogy that the Holy Spirit is Hypostatically like the Eternal Love between the Father and the Son. For, St. Augustine proves, the Scriptural expressions also teach us about the Hypostatic relation. St. Augustine says the Council of Nicaea had said Arians, because they said there was a time when the Word did not exist, are madmen on par with those who say there was a time when God was without Wisdom. Now, how are you going to answer St. Augustine's  argument that saying there was a time when the Spirit did not Hypostatically Proceed from the Father and the Son, is like saying there was a time when the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit was not loved by the Father and the Son, which so grievously afflicts and injures the Holy Spirit? Cardinal St. Robert proves this near the end.

Do I need to cite the text of St. Augustine again? I should say that many learned and holy Orthodox Priests like Fr. Romanides teach that the Filioque as found in St. Augustine is perfectly Orthodox. And I thought you too had once expressed something close to that, dear Rohzek. But Photian Monopatrism is an error just like Eutychian Monophysitism is an error. Now, many good and Holy Priests in the Syrian Orthodox do not hold and have never held what Eutyches taught, but rejected it. And similarly the opinion of Patriarch Photius is disproved by St. Augustine, and even St. Palamas later adopts the Augustine Trinitarian Love Analogy to explain.

[Edit: The text of Munich you are talking about says that the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Spirit, which is true. Please answer St. Augustine below why you disagree with him on him. Thanks and God bless.]

Let me cite St. Augustine in De Trinitate: "When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son ... In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.”

"And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself ... Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time.And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him..."
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 05:00:47 AM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
Actually Xavier, the Munich statement is pretty clear. Lemme explicate:

Quote
In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

That's the Munich statement. It says the Father is the sole source of the Trinity. Now you misinterpret the words "sole source in the Trinity" as the "common source in the Trinity." Those are two entirely different things. And the word "common" isn't found here, but only "sole." Your understanding holds no water. If the Father is the sole source, then the Son cannot be a source.

As for your Augustine passage, as I explained in detail in both of my blog posts, those double processions you refer to have nothing to do with hypostatic origin. They have to do with hypostatic relations. The Holy Spirit is fully the Holy Spirit by means of the Father alone. Yet, it also has an eternal hypostatic relationship that it shares with both the Father and the Son.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 12:52:56 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
Actually Xavier, the Munich statement is pretty clear. Lemme explicate:

Quote
In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

That's the Munich statement. It says the Father is the sole source of the Trinity. Now you misinterpret the words "sole source in the Trinity" as the "common source in the Trinity." Those are two entirely different things. And the word "common" isn't found here, but only "sole." Your understanding holds no water. If the Father is the sole source, then the Son cannot be a source.

As for your Augustine passage, as I explained in detail in both of my blog posts, those double processions you refer to have nothing to do with hypostatic origin. They have to do with hypostatic relations. The Holy Spirit is fully the Holy Spirit by means of the Father alone. Yet, it also has an eternal hypostatic relationship that it shares with both the Father and the Son.

You will now receive a three page response. 

Either that, or an entirely new thread will be started this week that begins "My dear friends, let us now consider the following teaching regarding the Filioque..."
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 01:36:01 PM by PorphyriosK »

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
Actually Xavier, the Munich statement is pretty clear. Lemme explicate:

Quote
In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

That's the Munich statement. It says the Father is the sole source of the Trinity. Now you misinterpret the words "sole source in the Trinity" as the "common source in the Trinity." Those are two entirely different things. And the word "common" isn't found here, but only "sole." Your understanding holds no water. If the Father is the sole source, then the Son cannot be a source.

As for your Augustine passage, as I explained in detail in both of my blog posts, those double processions you refer to have nothing to do with hypostatic origin. They have to do with hypostatic relations. The Holy Spirit is fully the Holy Spirit by means of the Father alone. Yet, it also has an eternal hypostatic relationship that it shares with both the Father and the Son.

You will now receive a three page response. 

Either that, or an entirely new thread will be started this week that begins "My dear friends, let us now consider the following teaching regarding the Filioque..."

lol, you're not wrong.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Online Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
Quote
St. Augustine and Divine Simplicity
Well, good think that:
1. He wasn't the Pope.
2. He didn't speak ex-cathedra.
3. Papal infallibility is a false doctrine made up by delusional apostate puffed up with pride & vanity.

Quote
Niw, you adduce a theological reason of your own, Divine Simplicity. But what is Divine Simplicity anyway? St. Augustine proves it from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition like this: Holy  Writ says the Son is the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Life and the Love of the Father and Son. But the Son and the Spirit are the Divine Essence. Hence, Wisdom, Love, Power and all the Divine Attributes (when we consider them ad intra in Their Source, or within the Holy Trinity) are the Divine Essence. [In the external manifestation of those attributes, what we call ad extra operations of the Holy Trinity, the attributes differ in their manifestation]
Divine simplicity = God has no parts (doesn't mean there is no multiplicity in God)
Thomistic simplicity =  collapsing everything into the absolute one(whatever that means) and removing all real distinctions within God.

If there is no real distinction within God, then theosis is impossible. No real distinction between divine essence and divine energies makes partaking of God to entail becoming a God by essence and because of such absurdity the council of trent defined salvation as infused created grace. According to trent (your dogma) What you partake in salvation is creaturely effect or habit.

V2 takes this to its natural conclusion: because according to papal dogmatism the grace of salvation is created, there is no real distinction between a christian's good deed and a hindu's good deed because both deeds are created effect. This is why you have peganism in your vatican 2 mass and your clergy partake in pegan rituals, your pope worships with muslims and jews and so on. As v2 "theologians" put it, there is different ways of created good that lead to God.....


On the contrary, according to the Orthodox Church a christian's good deed is God working in man and serves as means to further that union(theosis). A pegan's "good deed" is something carnal with another end and goal of its own. Both are absolutely not the same and very different.

Quote
Now, you argue hypostatic procession contradicts divine simplicity
See ? Even you understand there is confusion, contradictions and misunderstanding in your papal theorizings.

Quote
Even St. Palamas used St. Augustine's analogy that the Holy Spirit is Hypostatically like the Eternal Love between the Father and the Son. For, St. Augustine proves, the Scriptural expressions also teach us about the Hypostatic relation. St. Augustine says the Council of Nicaea had said Arians, because they said there was a time when the Word did not exist, are madmen on par with those who say there was a time when God was without Wisdom. Now, how are you going to answer St. Augustine's  argument that saying there was a time when the Spirit did not Hypostatically Proceed from the Father and the Son, is like saying there was a time when the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit was not loved by the Father and the Son, which so grievously afflicts and injures the Holy Spirit? Cardinal St. Robert proves this near the end.
You keep misquote St Gregory Palamas, he doesn't teach filioque. Your arian analogy argument is infact more applicable to you since it is you who mistake mission with hypostatic origin thus imply arian subordination applied to the Holy Spirit.

By saying The Holy Spirit to hypostitically originate from the "will" is an arian argument applied to the Spirit.
Pulling quotes from scripture where it points to the mission of the Holy Spirit and saying this is hypostatic origin is yet again an arian argument for the Spirit.

Your problem is that you are confused, not intentionally, you are sort of bound to accept this confusion so you may not have a choice but to try to make a sense out of the non-sense, and this is your problem. We do not need your problems in our spotless orthodoxy.


« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 01:54:05 PM by Vanhyo »

Online Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

Quote
In this way the presence of the Spirit itself is extended by the sharing in the sacrament of the word made flesh to all the body of the church. Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820706_munich_en.html

You’re just plain wrong here. Catholic doctrine attributes causality but motnultimate causality. That’s where you get confused and end up becoming rude in your frustration.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
246The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

Quote
The Father isn't just principle without principle for Catholicism.
The more we speak the more it’s becoming apparent you don’t truly understand what this phrase means.

Quote
In the absolute sense, he is the only source.
Absolutely, yes

Quote
Making the Son a cause of the hypostatic coming into being of the Holy Spirit violates Divine Simplicity.
It actually has no bearing in so far as the opposite relations do not touch or harm the divine essence. This is explained thoroughly by St Thomas.

Then your understanding of God precludes his divine simplicity.
Absolutely not. The essence does not proceed, the person of the Holy Spirit does.

Quote
We're talking about hypostaseos here, not just the ousia.
Divine simplicity refers to the essence of God not the persons or their relations.

Quote
Saying it doesn't effect the ousia but that the person of the Holy Spirit still requires two contributions is nonetheless a partition, imperfect, and unworthy of being called God.
So says Rhozek but not the fathers or doctors.

The Holy Spirit required a relation to the Son for the purposes of being distinguished as a person. Lest we fall in sabellianism in confusing the persons of the Son and Holy Spirit due to no opposite relation as persons are distinguished by opposite relations (a fact admitted by the fathers and even the Greeks at Florence).

Quote
This doesn’t even make sense.
It really does, you are just very confused about divine simplicity, opposing relations and the divine essence.

Quote
hypostatic relations do not preclude divine simplicity
Agreed, Nobody on this thread has ever argued this. They just do not touch the divine essence lest we teach error by logically implying the essence begets, is begotten or proceeds due to the relations (Filiation and Spiration) touching upon the essence.

Quote
You're falling into the very fallacy that St. Photius argued against, (and I'm not even sure people were even attributing causality to the Son
Causality in so far as it’s not ultimate is not precluded from the Son. The fathers testify to this and frankly St Photius as you present him was wrong. Even modern academics acknowledged the novelty of the St Photius’ exclusion of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Son. The 7th council in the confession of St Terasus already confirmed the hypostatic relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit in contradiction to St Photius. Nevermind the confessions of St Gregory of Nyssa (whose analogy you said sucked yet confirmed this truth), St Athanasius of Alexandria, St Hilary of Poitiers, St Augustine, St Ambrose, St Epiphinaius of Salamis, St Cyril, St Isidore of Seville, St Anslem, St Augustine of Canterbury (an easterner) in the Synod of Whitby, St Basil, St Leo, St Damasus, St Fulgentius and I can go on and on...

Quote
And it also appears that there is a contradiction between the Catholic statement given at Munich and the Catholic statement given at Florence.
None whatsoever other than errors in your understanding. Ultimate causality is what is posited in the Munich statement, a thing only true of the Father. You seem to not be able to wrap your head around the difference between ultimate and mediate. The mediate causality of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit as it is from the the Father from whence the Son gets this and this shows truly the Father is the source solely/properly.

Secondly if we have changed as you say, why is the Florentine decree quoted as the authoritative and official explanation of Catholic teaching when this commission ,which supposedly taught a converse position to Florence, preceded the Catechism by 10 years? Why do we still confess the Filioque in our creed every Sunday? Simply because there is no contradiction. These statements teach the same doctrine, the ultimate causality of the Father.

Lastly for the sake the argument, even if you were correct in noting a contradiction... The statement of the commission does not represent the Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox for that matter but only the views and conclusions of the members of the commission. The position of the Church is in her magisterial documents (catechism, Conciliar decrees, Papal pronouncements etc). The Munich statements is a statement of the the JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. In some instances, the conclusions of these commissions have even been diverged from and outright dissented by the Eastern Orthodox have diverged from some of the commissions conclusions.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2019, 02:58:28 PM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Offline WPM

  • Fan of the Jewish Holidays
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,610
  • Faith: Universal
  • Jurisdiction: United States
3: On St. Augustine and Divine Simplicity: Niw, you adduce a theological reason of your own, Divine Simplicity. But what is Divine Simplicity anyway? St. Augustine proves it from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition like this: Holy  Writ says the Son is the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Life and the Love of the Father and Son. But the Son and the Spirit are the Divine Essence. Hence, Wisdom, Love, Power and all the Divine Attributes (when we consider them ad intra in Their Source, or within the Holy Trinity) are the Divine Essence. [In the external manifestation of those attributes, what we call ad extra operations of the Holy Trinity, the attributes differ in their manifestation]

Thus, Scripture itself says God is Love, for example. That means the Essence of God is Love. And that is Divine Simplicity in a nutshell.

Now, you argue hypostatic procession contradicts divine simplicity, but this does not follow at all, and is refuted by the authority of St. Augustine himself who taught both, as earlier documented. Even St. Palamas used St. Augustine's analogy that the Holy Spirit is Hypostatically like the Eternal Love between the Father and the Son. For, St. Augustine proves, the Scriptural expressions also teach us about the Hypostatic relation. St. Augustine says the Council of Nicaea had said Arians, because they said there was a time when the Word did not exist, are madmen on par with those who say there was a time when God was without Wisdom. Now, how are you going to answer St. Augustine's  argument that saying there was a time when the Spirit did not Hypostatically Proceed from the Father and the Son, is like saying there was a time when the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit was not loved by the Father and the Son, which so grievously afflicts and injures the Holy Spirit? Cardinal St. Robert proves this near the end.

Do I need to cite the text of St. Augustine again? I should say that many learned and holy Orthodox Priests like Fr. Romanides teach that the Filioque as found in St. Augustine is perfectly Orthodox. And I thought you too had once expressed something close to that, dear Rohzek. But Photian Monopatrism is an error just like Eutychian Monophysitism is an error. Now, many good and Holy Priests in the Syrian Orthodox do not hold and have never held what Eutyches taught, but rejected it. And similarly the opinion of Patriarch Photius is disproved by St. Augustine, and even St. Palamas later adopts the Augustine Trinitarian Love Analogy to explain.

[Edit: The text of Munich you are talking about says that the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Spirit, which is true. Please answer St. Augustine below why you disagree with him on him. Thanks and God bless.]

Let me cite St. Augustine in De Trinitate: "When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son ... In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.”

"And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself ... Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time.And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him..."


Thanks for explaining.
The first 5 books of the To-Rah is Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
http://www.jewfaq.org/current.shtml
Sound the Ram's Horn and it shall be a New Moon Festival

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 902
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, ReUnite Your Church!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Por, rather the sequence goes like - Orthodox raise some objections, Catholics like Wandile and myself address and answer all the objections from beginning to end in detail, with numerous authorities; then, like above, almost all of them are ignored, one single statement in one document is latched upon, and all the ancient Fathers, the demonstration from theological reason etc are again ignored.

Moreover, it's Orthodox who raised this as an issue historically, almost the only issue at the time of Lyons II - along with Azyme Bread, perhaps, with the latter now almost universally recognized as a non-issue, after St. Thomas wrote, "On the Errors of the Greeks". Even Purgatory was raised later, and though much disputed in Florence, Purgatory too becomes a non-issue after the Synod of Jerusalem, which teaches an almost identical doctrine to Purgatory. Then Transubstantiation is raised, that too was taught in that synod.

The last thread I started on Filioque was in February; there, too, the objections were answered by Wandile and I. If you want to discuss Filioque in only one thread, we can do that. I've discussed almost every other topic in theology here, including where Orthodox and Catholic agree mostly, and some in which we still disagree slightly. But since it's an Orthodox-Catholic discussion subforum, there will inevitably be discussion on the doctrinal differences; whether in threads by myself or others, of which Filioque is still a part. God bless.

Rohzek, please answer the questions point by point. Wandile has sufficiently answered regarding Munich, but we'll come to that last.

(1) You mentioned The Fire Analogy. Please answer, address or at least comment on the Fire Analogy of St. Gregory to show us that you read it, and take it into account in your theology: "we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch[/b" and ""one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause" and the "interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father". We can prove this is the unanimous Tradition of the Greek Fathers.

(2) Please answer the authority of Pope St. Damasus in a Synod around 380: “We believe…in the Holy Spirit, not begotten nor unbegotten, not created nor made, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, always co-eternal with the Father and the Son” [1]

(3) Please explain why Pope St. Leo is wrong in a letter controverting Sabellians: "as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceeded from both yet another" [2] In your last post, you claimed, "The Holy Spirit is fully the Holy Spirit by means of the Father alone. Yet, it also has an eternal hypostatic relationship that it shares with both the Father and the Son."

How will you reconcile that with Pope St. Leo who says, the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, has Personal Distinction by Procession from Both?

(4) Please answer St. Robert on the Athanasian authorship of the Athanasian Creed: "Blessed Athanasius who says in his Creed, “The Holy Spirit is not made nor created nor generated by the Father and the Son, but proceeds.”

To this testimony two things can be said. First that this creed is not really from Athanasius, but this is easily refuted, both from Nazianzen where he says in praise of Athanasius that he composed a most perfect confession of faith that the whole West and East venerate, and also from Augustine who by name cites Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and adduces a complete section of this creed, and he uses whole sentences from it, with the name of Athanasius, as if it were very well known in the Church."

(5) Please explain why the Fifth Ecumenical is incorrect to say, "We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith."[3], or how, if it is correct, this decree can be squared with the writing of Pope St. Leo quoted above. After citing St. Leo, Cardinal St. Robert notes, "Ninth Blessed Leo, “There is one who generates; another who is generated; another who proceeds from both.” And this is that Leo the Great whom in the fourth Synod 630 Bishops, almost all Oriental, extolled with the greatest praise, and about whom they repeated again and again that as Leo believes so also do we believe."

Let him who can answer these 5 questions point by point. Then, we can discuss modern statements. The Council of Florence has the greatest authority, it is dogmatic and infallible. The Catechism has next greatest authority, it is Authentic Ordinary Magisterium. Finally, Greek and Latin Theologians recently, although not Magisterially, agreed on a Joint statement specifically on Filioque, so why not cite that? "The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8 The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character."[4]

I agree with Wandile, the Father is the sole ultimate source, the Son is the intermediary or medium. Do you agree with the above statement of Catholic and Orthodox modern Theologians, Rohzek? Does the eternal Spiration of the Spirit take place by the Son?

References:

[1] see, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, A. Edward Siecienski, pp. 56-57
[2] Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
[3] Second Council of Constantinople [553]
[4] The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit: Study from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Offline Xavier

  • Slave of Love consecrated to the Hearts of Jesus and Mary through the Precious Blood of Jesus.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 902
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, ReUnite Your Church!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Pope - but my heart is for Re-Union!
Quote from: Vanhyo
Well, good think that:
1. He [Bishop St. Augustine] wasn't the Pope.

Yes, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council enlists him as one of the holy Fathers "we follow in every way". What is interesting is that Filioque could probably be shown from each and every one of those Fathers of whom Constantinople II had stated that, and yet Filioque is wrong?

Quote
Divine simplicity = God has no parts (doesn't mean there is no multiplicity in God)
Thomistic simplicity =  collapsing everything into the absolute one(whatever that means) and removing all real distinctions within God.

Non sequitur. There is no "whatever that means". Thomistic Divine Simplicity is the same as Augustinian Divine Simplicity, which is the same as Scriptural Divine Simplicity. St. John the Apostle teaching God is Love, is sufficient proof that Love is the Divine Essence. Similarly, the Lord and Apostles teach Christ is the Wisdom of God. Therefore, Wisdom is the Divine Essence. That is Divine Simplicity.

Quote
No real distinction between divine essence and divine energies

Non sequitur. Energies are usually translated "operations" in the West. The Divine Operations do indeed differ from the Divine Essence. But they are not another God, as some have mistakenly exaggerated; they are nothing less than God's activity in the world of creatures.

Catholic Dictionary: "Divine Operation: God's activity outside of himself. Also called divine activity ad extra in contrast with divine activity within the Trinity. The Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence teach that all of God's activity outside the trinity is done simultaneously and equally by all three persons. Thus everything that God does in the world of creatures, whether naturally or supernaturally, is the operation of all three divine persons."https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33161

Quote
According to trent (your dogma) What you partake in salvation is creaturely effect or habit.

Non sequitur again, sorry. This is Trent. "The causes of this justification are ... the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation."

Quote
On the contrary, according to the Orthodox Church a christian's good deed is God working in man and serves as means to further that union(theosis). A pegan's "good deed" is something carnal with another end and goal of its own. Both are absolutely not the same and very different.

Have you never heard the Catholic Church, and all Catholic Theologians unanimously - except some modern Modernists who reject Tradition and Thomism today - explain the distinction between a natural good deed (such as that Cornelius did, in Scripture), and supernatural good deeds (such as that baptized Christians do)? This is Catholic Theology 101, I'm afraid.

Here's the CCC, which cites, Vatican II often, which you claim is allegedly filled with this error, on what is necessary for salvation: "161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'" and "848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 The CCC says God will bring non-Christians who strive, through natural good deeds that are open to the working of God's Grace and the revelation of God's salvation in Christ, to saving faith in Him. That is the sense in which it is said believing in Jesus is necessary for obtaining salvation, and that is what happened to Cornelius also.

Quote
you may not have a choice but to try to make a sense out of the non-sense

Have you ever prayed deeply and specifically about the Filioque matter, Vanhyo? Have you felt God's urging as to what to do about it?

I pray about it before the Blessed Sacrament; and I have witnessed miracles happen when people spend a month faithfully and daily, or at least regularly, praying there. To me, it seems clear that the Holy Spirit is displeased with the error that His Hypostasis is not eternally from Father and Son. Although you do not see it, the Holy Spirit says it amounts to saying the Holy Spirit is not loved by the Father and the Son eternally. Which is why it offends Him so. Did you read the OP article from beginning to end, Vanhyo? It was written by one who both knows the history and theology. How can 15 Greek Fathers and 15 Latin Fathers, divinized by theosis, testify to what is allegedly mistaken or even heresy (according to you)?

To me, it's very simple how this issue, that has caused a lot of needless grief, can be resolved: A simple profession of the Universal Church, of the Greek Orthodox Church in Ecumenical Council together with us, of Patriarch St. Tarasius' profession at Nicaea II, as Rohzek also suggested.

God bless.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 01:19:37 AM by Xavier »
"My dear Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with your most precious Blood and your sacrifice on Calvary, I hereby offer my whole life to the intention of your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Together with my life, I place at your disposal all Holy Masses, all my Holy Communions, all my good deeds, all my sacrifices, and the sufferings of my entire life for the adoration ... https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

Online Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
Quote from: Vanhyo
Well, good think that:
1. He [Bishop St. Augustine] wasn't the Pope.

Yes, but the Fifth Ecumenical Council enlists him as one of the holy Fathers "we follow in every way". What is interesting is that Filioque could probably be shown from each and every one of those Fathers of whom Constantinople II had stated that, and yet Filioque is wrong?

Ok then, do RCs follow in every way St Agustine in this statement:

𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢), 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢) 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬; 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵. ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦,’ 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬‘ 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘥, 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩;’ 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, ‘𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩.’ 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘴; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.’ 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘐𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥? 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭?’ 𝘈𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭, 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵: 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳.

Only After the schism, filioque began to mean something else than mission and it was introduced into the Creed disobediently.

Quote
Divine simplicity = God has no parts (doesn't mean there is no multiplicity in God)
Thomistic simplicity =  collapsing everything into the absolute one(whatever that means) and removing all real distinctions within God.

Non sequitur. There is no "whatever that means". Thomistic Divine Simplicity is the same as Augustinian Divine Simplicity, which is the same as Scriptural Divine Simplicity. St. John the Apostle teaching God is Love, is sufficient proof that Love is the Divine Essence. Similarly, the Lord and Apostles teach Christ is the Wisdom of God. Therefore, Wisdom is the Divine Essence. That is Divine Simplicity.
You are now just mixing everything and generalizing it, St John the Apostle doesn't teach thomistic simplicity.

The conclusion of thomistic simplicity is if being a creator is the divine essence, being eternal is the divine essence then God is eternally a creator and there was not a "time" when creation was not. Or if divine providence is the divine essence then creation must be eternal for God to be provident over it eternally. You could say thomistic simplicity was condemned by the Church in the person of Origen.

Quote
No real distinction between divine essence and divine energies

Non sequitur. Energies are usually translated "operations" in the West. The Divine Operations do indeed differ from the Divine Essence. But they are not another God, as some have mistakenly exaggerated; they are nothing less than God's activity in the world of creatures.

A strawman often hurled at the orthodox church for having no answer to Her infallible teachings. Distinction doesn't mean division, just like distinction between the persons of the Holy trinity doesn't mean division. Also you do not represent the papal dogmatic teaching here, in thomism there is no distinction between essence and operations but the operations are said to be the essence.

Catholic Dictionary: "Divine Operation: God's activity outside of himself. Also called divine activity ad extra in contrast with divine activity within the Trinity. The Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence teach that all of God's activity outside the trinity is done simultaneously and equally by all three persons. Thus everything that God does in the world of creatures, whether naturally or supernaturally, is the operation of all three divine persons."https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33161

Now that is an interesting statement, you seem to be guilty of the very thing you implied "some have mistakenly exaggerated" unless you say that all activity "ad extra" is a created effect and not uncreated and divine. So we are back at created grace problem.

Also there is only one divine operation proper to the divine essence, i am noticing that some papal apologists have began to develop the idea that there are two divine operations, one they define as "ad intra" and causing the existence of divine person and another they define as "ad extra" and not causing a divine person. This development seems to be some form of escape card answer to those pesky orthodox and their accusations of heresy, the problem is that by using this escape card you have created another problem - the Church have infallibly defined the there is one divine essence, will and operation. Your formula creates two divine wills, two divine operations that are different by definition.


Quote
According to trent (your dogma) What you partake in salvation is creaturely effect or habit.

Non sequitur again, sorry. This is Trent. "The causes of this justification are ... the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation."

Ironically you could say that here is a statement for essence-energy distinction and that God is just by essence and he makes as just by uncreated grace, if you were a cunning enough, even though that is not at all what they meant by this statement and this is historically provable. When that statement was composed what they wanted to communicate is that since the operation of God is the essence of God then we are not just by the "thomistic simple essence/same-as/energy" by which God is just but by another created and external to God "supernatural gift".

The logic of this is very simple, if it is not the very justice of God and something external to God, then it follow that it is created. RC clearly teaches created grace and if that is not the case, why even have those two words together ?


Have you never heard the Catholic Church, and all Catholic Theologians unanimously - except some modern Modernists who reject Tradition and Thomism today - explain the distinction between a natural good deed (such as that Cornelius did, in Scripture), and supernatural good deeds (such as that baptized Christians do)? This is Catholic Theology 101, I'm afraid.

Here's the CCC, which cites, Vatican II often, which you claim is allegedly filled with this error, on what is necessary for salvation: "161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'" and "848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 The CCC says God will bring non-Christians who strive, through natural good deeds that are open to the working of God's Grace and the revelation of God's salvation in Christ, to saving faith in Him. That is the sense in which it is said believing in Jesus is necessary for obtaining salvation, and that is what happened to Cornelius also.
And trent have already defined that grace is created and external to God. Even so just because you call pull a statements here and there that are sometimes correct or ambitious or contradict other statements of papal doctrines it doesn't mean anything. True consistency and sound doctrine can be found only in the Orthodox Church.

Have you ever prayed deeply and specifically about the Filioque matter, Vanhyo? Have you felt God's urging as to what to do about it?



No. The matter was solved a millennia ago, i did not come into the orthodox church in order to fix Her, that will be a case of diabolical prelest. I came to the Church to obey and be healed. If the Church of Christ rejects the filioque doctrine i am going to obey this and defend it.

I pray about it before the Blessed Sacrament; and I have witnessed miracles happen when people spend a month faithfully and daily, or at least regularly, praying there.

You should be careful with miracles and signs, 1.You do not know who is sending them 2. Even if from God, you do not know if you are interpreting them correctly.

To me, it seems clear that the Holy Spirit is displeased with the error that His Hypostasis is not eternally from Father and Son. Although you do not see it, the Holy Spirit says it amounts to saying the Holy Spirit is not loved by the Father and the Son eternally. Which is why it offends Him so.
You are delusional, beware lest you become insane.

Did you read the OP article from beginning to end, Vanhyo? It was written by one who both knows the history and theology. How can 15 Greek Fathers and 15 Latin Fathers, divinized by theosis, testify to what is allegedly mistaken or even heresy (according to you)?
The political councils forced by the worldly authority who want to change the doctrines of the Church in exchange for political/millitary assistance have always been the biggest danger to the orthodox church.

To me, it's very simple how this issue, that has caused a lot of needless grief, can be resolved: A simple profession of the Universal Church, of the Greek Orthodox Church in Ecumenical Council together with us, of Patriarch St. Tarasius' profession at Nicaea II, as Rohzek also suggested.

To me, it is not simple at all. I do sympathize with roman catholicism, they have outwardly the sacraments, apostolic lineage, the Cross, the veneration of the Theotokos but the problem is we are not seeking unity of all people in some lose and ambiguous terms of agreement but unity with Christ in Spirit and Truth.








« Last Edit: July 20, 2019, 06:17:40 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
Good post Vanhyo.


Have you ever prayed deeply and specifically about the Filioque matter, Vanhyo? Have you felt God's urging as to what to do about it?

I pray about it before the Blessed Sacrament; and I have witnessed miracles happen when people spend a month faithfully and daily, or at least regularly, praying there. To me, it seems clear that the Holy Spirit is displeased with the error that His Hypostasis is not eternally from Father and Son. Although you do not see it, the Holy Spirit says it amounts to saying the Holy Spirit is not loved by the Father and the Son eternally. Which is why it offends Him so.

Vanhyo is right Xavier, you should tread carefully.  Your statement above is full of pride and prelest.  You brag about your own piety and witnessing of miracles, question the faith of others and speak as though you personally know the very mind of God and speak for Him.  Your tone is often that of someone who believes he is sent here on a mission by God Himself.

Quote
Por, rather the sequence goes like - Orthodox raise some objections, Catholics like Wandile and myself address and answer all the objections from beginning to end in detail, with numerous authorities; then, like above, almost all of them are ignored, one single statement in one document is latched upon, and all the ancient Fathers, the demonstration from theological reason etc are again ignored.

With all due respect, you are the one who constantly ignores the responses of members here.  I seriously doubt you will specifically address the points and quotes given by Vanhyo in his last post.  You simply continue composing large amounts of text saying the same things over and over again.  Sometimes the amount of text is so much that it would take considerable time to respond to everything, and not many are willing especially when it's things that have already been addressed many times.  You also do things such as quoting Orthodox theologians (like John Meyendorff), trying to imply that they believe Catholic doctrine.  They don't.  I've read the whole book that you took those Meyendorff quotes from.

I'm just trying to explain to you why your posts are sometimes not taken as seriously as you would like.  They're long, very formal in tone, written in the style of bygone eras, and highly repetitive.  I'd say people here in general have been very patient with you considering you come here daily to an Orthodox forum in order to proselytize.  It's natural you are going to get some push-back. If you get frustrated and irritated because of that, then it may be more of your ego that is at work rather than God.

I'm sorry if what I've written sounds harsh.  I have no animosity against you personally and you seem like a very nice guy.  Just be careful about trying to show off your piety because it can be off-putting.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,350
I'm just going to answer one last thing before moving on here, Xavier. My central problem with the analogy of Fire lay with the context in which it is being used and the lack of clarity it has with the subject at hand, namely the Filioque discussion. Ostensibly, when it was first brought out in this thread, as was established in previous threads, God the Father was the sole cause and it is the Orthodox suspicion that Catholics do not believe that which needed to be cleared up. As this thread now demonstrates, however, neither you nor Wandile believe that God the Father is the sole cause in the Trinity. So my objection to it is mute at this point because it is now clear that you believe something that I find irreconcilable to the faith as a whole. I also suspect that you're using a poor translation of St. Gregory of Nyssa because I've read that passage before without the key words of "first Cause". St. Gregory only describes the Father alone as a cause. But then he goes on to say, "First" without the key word of cause coming after, which would imply what you're hoping to imply - that there is a secondary cause. There is no secondary cause. The idea is nonsense. From Siecienski, whom you cite elsewhere:

Quote
Like Gregory of Nazianzus, Nyssa used causality to distinguish the Father within the Trinity, since “we believe one to be a Cause, and the other to be from the Cause” (τῷ τὸ μὲν αἴτιον πιστεύειν εἶναι τὸ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου).77 However, in differentiating between the Son and the Spirit he maintained that

the one (i.e., the Son) is directly from the First and the other (i.e., the Spirit) is through the one who is directly from the First (τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου) with the result that the Only-begotten remains the Son and does not negate the Spirit’s being from the Father since the middle position of the Son both protects His distinction as Only-begotten and does not exclude the Spirit from His natural relation to the Father.78

The Filioque page 43

And before I conclude, I really hate to bring this hammer down so harshly, but after so many threads, I think it is time someone said something. You don't know any of the necessary languages to have a good debate about this subject. Both you and Wandile constantly claim the Greek fathers and the Latin fathers as saying the same thing. And that us Orthodox are just stubborn and that our St. Photius was just wrong in every way despite his rehabilitation in the Catholic Church nearly 80 years ago, and so on and so on. The Orthodox posters here in this forum throughout the multitudes of these threads on the Filioque have commented on at least three different languages regarding the Filioque quotes you and others have cited - in Latin, Greek, and Syriac, none of which I might add have either you nor Wandile demonstrated an ability to read with any good measure. I can only read one of these languages, sure. But if y'all are going to constantly dig up this argument, constantly quote mine, etc. then at least have the intellectual know-how to quote the sources in at least one of those original languages and to provide your own translations. At least have the know-how to read your own councils of Florence or Trent in their original languages. I trust that in the traditional seminary you are about to attend Xavier, that you'll fix this deficiency in some measure. Come back, if you still want to then, and use your new skills then.

Vanhyo, you have my admiration for continuing this argument. I myself don't see much reason in doing so. In the past few threads, at least we established as common ground that God the Father was the sole cause. But here, now both Wandile and Xavier are saying that the Holy Spirit requires a secondary cause, are rejecting the Munich statement of agreement between our bishops and theirs, and are saying simplicity lies in the essence of God alone, not the persons as well. I don't know. I'll probably eat my words, but maybe its wise to take a page out of Tertullian on this one and to ignore it.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
Yes, PorphyriosK this is not the first "Filioque"/"Absolute Divine Simplicity vs. Essence & Energies" distinction discussion I've seen on this board. However, I must state I can seldom follow any of them after a time. I've even tried to listen to Jay Dyer on the topic and even after a while, he loses me. My point in all this is first, is it even possible for us today to accurately portray, comprehend and understand exactly what was debated on the Filioque because as I understand it, the difference were based on the trouble between Greek and Latin? Therefore, speaking English, can I really have an appreciation for the issue today as they debated it centuries ago?

I feel somewhat the same way on the Divine Simplicity/Essence & Energies distinction. If I went and asked very pious Roman Catholics from my family or people I knew growing up to explain Thomistic Divine Simplicity to me, I am sure I would get a blank stare. I wonder if I were to ask very pious Orthodox to explain the Essence and Energies distinction, I may get a similar look (I don't know.) However, I think what I would find common in both camps (East and West) is devout and pious Christians loving God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and loving their neighbor as themselves.

Some days I wonder if these conversations are helpful at all.
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
Yes, PorphyriosK this is not the first "Filioque"/"Absolute Divine Simplicity vs. Essence & Energies" distinction discussion I've seen on this board. However, I must state I can seldom follow any of them after a time. I've even tried to listen to Jay Dyer on the topic and even after a while, he loses me. My point in all this is first, is it even possible for us today to accurately portray, comprehend and understand exactly what was debated on the Filioque because as I understand it, the difference were based on the trouble between Greek and Latin? Therefore, speaking English, can I really have an appreciation for the issue today as they debated it centuries ago?

I feel somewhat the same way on the Divine Simplicity/Essence & Energies distinction. If I went and asked very pious Roman Catholics from my family or people I knew growing up to explain Thomistic Divine Simplicity to me, I am sure I would get a blank stare. I wonder if I were to ask very pious Orthodox to explain the Essence and Energies distinction, I may get a similar look (I don't know.) However, I think what I would find common in both camps (East and West) is devout and pious Christians loving God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and loving their neighbor as themselves.

Some days I wonder if these conversations are helpful at all.


I agree, and I've already said before that I wasn't going to engage anymore.  I broke my own resolution because I admit I lost my patience with Xavier's last post.  I don't have a problem with Wandile's posts because he at least speaks plainly and only defends the Catholic position when he feels it's being attacked, whereas Xavier is constantly on offense and speaks with an air of moral authority.

No, in real life these conversations do not happen and are not that relevant.  They're only relevant (for a time) for people like us who have struggled to discern who holds the fullness of truth between the Churches.  I have great love for both Catholics and Orthodox I know and these things never come up with them in social situations.

Offline PorphyriosK

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 788
Xavier,

I just wanted to apologize for my post to you yesterday.  It was unnecessarily harsh. 

Forgive me.


Offline WPM

  • Fan of the Jewish Holidays
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,610
  • Faith: Universal
  • Jurisdiction: United States
It took me several years of work to figure why or how Jesus Christ is God. (I think he means Human Messiah but not God the Father)
The first 5 books of the To-Rah is Genesis,Exodus,Leviticus,Numbers, and Deuteronomy.
http://www.jewfaq.org/current.shtml
Sound the Ram's Horn and it shall be a New Moon Festival

Offline Lepanto

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 603
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
No, in real life these conversations do not happen and are not that relevant.  They're only relevant (for a time) for people like us who have struggled to discern who holds the fullness of truth between the Churches.
This is my experience also. I never debated such things in real life apart from very few conversations with Catholic and Orthodox priests. This discussion is mostly virtual, on online fora such as this one.
The Catholics I know that I think a real pious hardly ever think about such discussions or Orthodoxy in general. At least that is my impression. I assume the same holds in turn for the Orthodox.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 03:20:24 PM by Lepanto »
Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis, miserere nobis.

Offline noahzarc1

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 486
No, in real life these conversations do not happen and are not that relevant.  They're only relevant (for a time) for people like us who have struggled to discern who holds the fullness of truth between the Churches.
This is my experience also. I never debated such things in real life apart from very few conversations with Catholic and Orthodox priests. This discussion is mostly virtual, on online fora such as this one.
The Catholics I know that I think a real pious hardly ever think about such discussions or Orthodoxy in general. At least that is my impression. I assume the same holds in turn for the Orthodox.
I was at a training all week in Texas and we had some very interesting backgrounds there. One person who survived the civil war in Yugoslavia and another who survived the revolution in Iran. A few others that were Catholic. We talked about many things. Two topics that never came up were Absolute Divine Simplicity or the Essence/Energy distinction. I think most of the grumbling that goes on amongst the faith crowd happens online
"While we fight about words, take advantage of ambiguities, criticize authors, fight on party questions, have difficulty in agreeing, and prepare to anathematize each other, there is scarce a man who belongs to Christ." - Hilary of Poitiers (367)

Offline Eamonomae

  • The Publican who hathn’t repented
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 800
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me a sinner!
  • Faith: Truth seeker
  • Jurisdiction: Schism
Well, here's a question I have, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but how can the Energies of God not be of the Essence of God?

Doesn't the term "essence" refer to "what it means to be God in His Divine Nature?"

As far as I know, the Essence of God is in toto unknowable to the Orthodox, only knowable insofar as it is in union with Christ's human essence, as human essence is knowable, and only knowable insofar as it has been revealed cataphatically and theologically; yet God can communicate to us through His Uncreated Energies, which are God but not His Essence.

Well, if God is His Energies, how is it not ultimately a part of God's One Divine Essence, or what it means to be God?
« Last Edit: Today at 01:21:13 AM by Eamonomae »
“As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.”

Online Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
Well, here's a question I have, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but how can the Energies of God not be of the Essence of God?

Doesn't the term "essence" refer to "what it means to be God in His Divine Nature?"

As far as I know, the Essence of God is in toto unknowable to the Orthodox, only knowable insofar as it is in union with Christ's human essence, as human essence is knowable, and only knowable insofar as it has been revealed cataphatically and theologically; yet God can communicate to us through His Uncreated Energies, which are God but not His Essence.

Well, if God is His Energies, how is it not ultimately a part of God's One Divine Essence, or what it means to be God?
You are trying to calculate God like mathematics, it is much more simple than that and even a baby can understand this. God is real substantial uncreated living being not a theoretical calculation. As such we do not see His divine substance, you cannot put it into microscope and investigate it, we (the church) however see God’s power, His Glory and His Mercy, the operations of God are not “parts of God” but He is fully present in each of those uncreated acts which are His works. Or in other words we say there is distinction because we see the works but not the divine essence. This doesnt mean that there are parts or division in God.

The distinction is also necessary for theology, if essence and energy are the same thing then theosis is not possible, because such thinking would imply we become gods by essence. The orthodox Church properly teaches that the saints who reach theosis become deified by uncreated grace or as St Paul puts it “it is no longer i who live but Christ who lives in me” . Is Christ living and acting through st Paul a creaturely thing ?

Online Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

The west teaches we will participate in God and see him ass he is. We truly inerecat with him. Yet we don’t become Gods because of our limited nature, can only experience God to the extent of our being this not becoming gods yet still deified.
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Online Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
His energies*

As he is*

Interact*

Forgive me for the typos I was typing that up on my phone.  ;D
« Last Edit: Today at 09:07:07 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.

Online Vanhyo

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,026
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: BOC
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

The west teaches we will participate in God and see him ass he is. We truly inerecat with him. Yet we don’t become Gods because of our limited nature, can only experience God to the extent of our being this not becoming gods yet still deified.
I could say that you for example, are a confused erring person but that is not who you are in substance but who you are in operation. Yet i am not making two wandiles, one here>space and one there, it is still one wandile.
« Last Edit: Today at 09:34:45 AM by Vanhyo »

Online Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,792
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

The west teaches we will participate in God and see him ass he is. We truly inerecat with him. Yet we don’t become Gods because of our limited nature, can only experience God to the extent of our being this not becoming gods yet still deified.
I could say that you for example, are a confused erring person but that is not who you are in substance but who you are in operation. Yet i am not making two wandiles, one here>space and one there, it is still one wandile.
Nice insult.

Anyway, My actions aren’t me though. They are a “reflection” of me as far as I see it.
« Last Edit: Today at 10:15:30 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today


I won’t be posting for the year so I can focus on my studies. God bless you.