OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: visitor on July 22, 2010, 09:44:54 AM

Title: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: visitor on July 22, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

I think it important here to not get into Biblical hermeneutics. This issue has had a lot of ink spilled over it.


But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

The results of the Filioque have been utterly predictable. Diaphysite Christiology has been utterly marginalized in the West, the Trinity has acquired a vertical hierarchy (which error sparked the Protestant reformation), and the Mother of God has been made the suffering sweetheart of the most Gothic family romance in history... You think I'm wrong? Look at the art.



In summary, a thoroughgoing understanding of diaphysite Christology immediately reveals the error, and even a cursory view of the Filioque's history exposes the doctrine for what it is...
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 09:54:49 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Iconodule on July 22, 2010, 10:25:02 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

By this reasoning, the Holy Spirit must also beget the Son, since the Holy Spirit is also one in essence with the Father.

"Homoousios" does not erase distinctions between the hypostases.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Schultz on July 22, 2010, 10:35:34 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

But the Holy Spirit is also of one essence with the Father and the Son.  As Iconodule pointed out, if you're going to go down the logical route you've proposed, the other two Persons of the Trinity must also proceed from any given one Person.  Yet no one would say that Father proceeds from the Son or the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 10:38:56 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

But the Holy Spirit is also of one essence with the Father and the Son.  As Iconodule pointed out, if you're going to go down the logical route you've proposed, the other two Persons of the Trinity must also proceed from any given one Person.  Yet no one would say that Father proceeds from the Son or the Holy Spirit.
I understand what you are saying, but the distinction in persons must be maintained. Let me look at the Summa this evening because I think that St. Thomas Aquinas argues this point really well.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 22, 2010, 10:43:21 AM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, ergo the Son in not God and Man...I don't follow this train of thought. Could you expand on what you mean by this?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on July 22, 2010, 10:47:13 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.
That's not how Catholics have traditionally defended the filioque. Traditionally, it is said that the Latin "procedere" does not refer simply to being "sent from its origin", but also includes "sent from a non-origin".

If that is the definition of "procedere", then one could say that the Holy Spirit [procedere] from the Son, because the Son is not the origin of the H.S.

But, the problem arises from the fact that "procedere" is also, in Latin, used to describe the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Father.

Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.

It's clear from the Greek, however, that the H.S. does not [procedere] from the Father, because the Father is the origin of the H.S., not a non-origin. Instead, the H.S.  takes origin ("ekporeuomenon") from the Father.

τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον

The Latin creed, as it exists, does not fully describe in a clear manner the true nature of the H.S. relationship to the Father.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on July 22, 2010, 10:56:36 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.
By that "logic" the Spirit begets the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Spirit.

Btw, I don't get the OP either.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on July 22, 2010, 11:05:45 AM
Yes, this seems to be the problem: if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit due to their state of homoousios, then the natural conclusion is that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit.  To argue otherwise would seem to imply the 'superiority' of the Son over the Holy Spirit since one is involved in the origin of the other, but not the other way around.

It would be nice if the RCC  would drop its insistence on this addition, if nothing else but for the sake of progress towards the unity of Christianity.


Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

But the Holy Spirit is also of one essence with the Father and the Son.  As Iconodule pointed out, if you're going to go down the logical route you've proposed, the other two Persons of the Trinity must also proceed from any given one Person.  Yet no one would say that Father proceeds from the Son or the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on July 22, 2010, 11:08:37 AM
Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 11:08:45 AM
Yes, this seems to be the problem: if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Holy Spirit due to their state of homoousios, then the natural conclusion is that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit.  To argue otherwise would seem to imply the 'superiority' of the Son over the Holy Spirit since one is involved in the origin of the other, but not the other way around.

It would be nice if the RCC  would drop its insistence on this addition, if nothing else but for the sake of progress towards the unity of Christianity.


Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

But the Holy Spirit is also of one essence with the Father and the Son.  As Iconodule pointed out, if you're going to go down the logical route you've proposed, the other two Persons of the Trinity must also proceed from any given one Person.  Yet no one would say that Father proceeds from the Son or the Holy Spirit.
Do you think that the lack of filioque then seems to suggest that the Spirit and the Son are not co-equal with the Father then?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on July 22, 2010, 11:12:17 AM
Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?
I would suspect that the Son was born, temporally, of the H.S.

And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 11:12:47 AM
Aquinas Argues:

"The Father and the Son, being one in essence, differ only in this, that He is the Father, and He the Son. Everything else is common to Father and Son. But being the origin of the Holy Ghost lies outside of the relationship of paternity and filiation: for the relation whereby the Father is Father differs from the relation whereby the Father is the origin of the Holy Ghost. Being the origin then of the Holy Ghost is something common to Father and Son."
-Summa Contra Gentiles
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Iconodule on July 22, 2010, 11:14:45 AM
Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?
I would suspect that the Son was born, temporally, of the H.S.

And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

Which explicitly contradicts the teaching of Florence, the current Catechism, etc.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on July 22, 2010, 11:15:03 AM
I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ICXCNIKA on July 22, 2010, 11:17:11 AM
Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?
\

I just want to make sure that I understand what you are stating. Are you saying that the Word is being born of the Holy Spirit in time due to His temporal mission just as the Son sends the Holy Spirit in His Temporal mission without being the cause of His procession in the Godhead? Or are you saying that the Son is born of the Holy Spirit as part of their relationship in the Godhead? Forgive me if i have bumbled through this question. I hope you understand what I mean.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Iconodule on July 22, 2010, 11:18:03 AM
Aquinas Argues:

"The Father and the Son, being one in essence, differ only in this, that He is the Father, and He the Son. Everything else is common to Father and Son.

I'm wondering whence Aquinas derived this striking principle. Can this actually be found in Patristic teaching, or is it, as I suspect, an artificial construct made to justify the Filioque ex post facto?


Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 11:18:46 AM
I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
On this Point:

"IF any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him (Rom. viii, 9). These words of the Apostle show that the same Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: for the text alleged follows upon these words immediately preceding: If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now it cannot be said that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit merely of the man Christ (Luke iv, 3): for from Gal. iv, 6, Since ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, it appears that the Holy Ghost makes sons of God inasmuch as He is the Spirit of the Son of God, -- sons of God, that is to say, by adoption, which means assimilation to Him who is Son of God by nature. For so the text has it: He hath predestined (them) to become conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29). But the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Spirit of the Son of God except as taking His origin from Him: for this distinction of origin is the only one admissible in the Godhead."  - St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG)

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)




                                                                                                                                    
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 11:22:44 AM
Aquinas Argues:

"The Father and the Son, being one in essence, differ only in this, that He is the Father, and He the Son. Everything else is common to Father and Son.

I'm wondering whence Aquinas derived this striking principle. Can this actually be found in Patristic teaching, or is it, as I suspect, an artificial construct made to justify the Filioque ex post facto?




I think it is a requirement of the doctrine of the Unity of the Trinity. But I will look into Patristic support. I was under the impression that Eastern Orthodox Christians believed that the persons of the Trinity had all things in common except those things that were proper to each person, those things that distinguished them from one another.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 11:25:25 AM
Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?
\

I just want to make sure that I understand what you are stating. Are you saying that the Word is being born of the Holy Spirit in time due to His temporal mission just as the Son sends the Holy Spirit in His Temporal mission without being the cause of His procession in the Godhead? Or are you saying that the Son is born of the Holy Spirit as part of their relationship in the Godhead? Forgive me if i have bumbled through this question. I hope you understand what I mean.
When the EO argue that the filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son because he is the only person that does generate another person, they are doing so based on the following premise: "If one person proceeds from another, then the one who proceeds is subordinate from the one from whom he proceeds".
But if one accepts that premise then the only conclusion is that in the EO view of the Trinity, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be co-equal with the Father because they both find their origin in the Father.

Because I know that EOs see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as co-equal, then the premise of their apologetic argument must be false and cannot be applied to the filoque. Thus, the attempt to "debunk" the Filioque on the part of EOs is invalid.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: visitor on July 22, 2010, 11:38:42 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 11:39:35 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.
I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has. This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

That being said, because the the distinction of Paternity and Sonship is what distinguishes the Father and the Son, this distinction makes the relationship of each to the procession of the Spirit different. The Father spirates the Spirit as the Father who is monarch, and source without source. The Son, on the other hand, spirates the Spirit by participation because the everything the Son has, comes from the Father, so the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really From the Father through the Son and is done in unison with the Father as a single source.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: visitor on July 22, 2010, 11:51:08 AM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, ergo the Son in not God and Man...I don't follow this train of thought. Could you expand on what you mean by this?

Hi.

My logical argument is at the head of the thread. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son creates a dialectical contradiction between Christ's two natures. The doctrine of the trinity is supposed to be an infinite knot, you know; but the west managed to unravel it, starting with the Filioque.

I merely cited wording from the Creed itself to demonstrate that the Filioque deconstructs even the very text into which it was inserted.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on July 22, 2010, 11:53:13 AM
I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
On this Point:

"IF any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him (Rom. viii, 9). These words of the Apostle show that the same Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: for the text alleged follows upon these words immediately preceding: If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now it cannot be said that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit merely of the man Christ (Luke iv, 3): for from Gal. iv, 6, Since ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, it appears that the Holy Ghost makes sons of God inasmuch as He is the Spirit of the Son of God, -- sons of God, that is to say, by adoption, which means assimilation to Him who is Son of God by nature. For so the text has it: He hath predestined (them) to become conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29). But the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Spirit of the Son of God except as taking His origin from Him: for this distinction of origin is the only one admissible in the Godhead."  - St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG)

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

I get what you are saying. Yet, you really have not answered my first question, which was "Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?" As you may surmise, I ask this because the one Creed that the entire Church agreed to does not contain the Filioque. So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.

Perhaps, I can ask the same question in this way: Is the RCC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the entire Body of Christ, starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all, through the Seven Ecumenical Councils? I realize that any answer to this question will involve a rethinking of the role of the Pope, not only in the Roman Church but in the entire Body.


                                                                                                                                    

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: visitor on July 22, 2010, 11:56:23 AM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.
I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. [bgcolor=#ffff00]Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has.[/bgcolor] This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

That being said, because the the distinction of Paternity and Sonship is what distinguishes the Father and the Son, this distinction makes the relationship of each to the procession of the Spirit different. The Father spirates the Spirit as the Father who is monarch, and source without source. The Son, on the other hand, spirates the Spirit by participation because the everything the Son has, comes from the Father, so the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really From the Father through the Son and is done in unison with the Father as a single source.

Yes, but which nature is speaking when He says this.

Welcome to Byzantium.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 12:19:36 PM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.
I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. [bgcolor=#ffff00]Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has.[/bgcolor] This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

That being said, because the the distinction of Paternity and Sonship is what distinguishes the Father and the Son, this distinction makes the relationship of each to the procession of the Spirit different. The Father spirates the Spirit as the Father who is monarch, and source without source. The Son, on the other hand, spirates the Spirit by participation because the everything the Son has, comes from the Father, so the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really From the Father through the Son and is done in unison with the Father as a single source.

Yes, but which nature is speaking when He says this.

Welcome to Byzantium.

There is only one divine nature.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 12:25:56 PM
I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
On this Point:

"IF any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him (Rom. viii, 9). These words of the Apostle show that the same Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: for the text alleged follows upon these words immediately preceding: If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now it cannot be said that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit merely of the man Christ (Luke iv, 3): for from Gal. iv, 6, Since ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, it appears that the Holy Ghost makes sons of God inasmuch as He is the Spirit of the Son of God, -- sons of God, that is to say, by adoption, which means assimilation to Him who is Son of God by nature. For so the text has it: He hath predestined (them) to become conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29). But the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Spirit of the Son of God except as taking His origin from Him: for this distinction of origin is the only one admissible in the Godhead."  - St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG)

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

I get what you are saying. Yet, you really have not answered my first question, which was "Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?" As you may surmise, I ask this because the one Creed that the entire Church agreed to does not contain the Filioque. So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.
Yes, it is that important because I believe that it is orthodox, scriptural, and patrisitc. It is true. Just as you do not want to sacrifice truth for unity, neither do we.
Perhaps, I can ask the same question in this way: Is the RCC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the entire Body of Christ, starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all, through the Seven Ecumenical Councils? I realize that any answer to this question will involve a rethinking of the role of the Pope, not only in the Roman Church but in the entire Body.
We have the same understanding of our Church that you have of yours. We would similarly ask, "Is the EOC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the Body of Christ, starting by accepting the Latin Fathers and all the councils, not just the first seven?"

I think that fact that each of our Churches sees itself as the true Church and the Body of Christ, will keep us from being able to achieve unity with one another this side of Heaven. But who knows. God is not limited and can perform the miralce that is required to restore unity if he sees fit.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 22, 2010, 12:28:33 PM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, ergo the Son in not God and Man...I don't follow this train of thought. Could you expand on what you mean by this?

Hi.

My logical argument is at the head of the thread. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son creates a dialectical contradiction between Christ's two natures. The doctrine of the trinity is supposed to be an infinite knot, you know; but the west managed to unravel it, starting with the Filioque.

I merely cited wording from the Creed itself to demonstrate that the Filioque deconstructs even the very text into which it was inserted.


I still don't see how it creatres a contradiction between Christ's two natures. Can you explain?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 22, 2010, 12:33:43 PM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, ergo the Son in not God and Man...I don't follow this train of thought. Could you expand on what you mean by this?

Hi.

My logical argument is at the head of the thread. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son creates a dialectical contradiction between Christ's two natures. The doctrine of the trinity is supposed to be an infinite knot, you know; but the west managed to unravel it, starting with the Filioque.

I merely cited wording from the Creed itself to demonstrate that the Filioque deconstructs even the very text into which it was inserted.


I still don't see how it creatres a contradiction between Christ's two natures. Can you explain?
Me neither, although my head usually spins anytime the Holy Trinity is discussed since it is pretty much impossible to completely wrap your head around the concept.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on July 22, 2010, 12:54:54 PM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.
I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has. This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another.

Like the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Quote
Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, they are: according to the Son, the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  The further jesuitry usually employed to defend the indefensible filiqoue, that the Spirit proceeds from a single spiration, as the Son would need, according to his sophistry, to have this single spiration in common with the Father (remember "everything the Father has, the Son has"), i.e. two sources of the Trinity.  Either the Son has both the single spiration and the procession, and you are a dualist, or He does not have the procession for the same reason He doesn't have the single spiration and single source.

Quote
Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

As shown above, does not compute.

Quote
That being said, because the the distinction of Paternity and Sonship is what distinguishes the Father and the Son, this distinction makes the relationship of each to the procession of the Spirit different.

You just said filiation is the only thing different between the Son and the Father. Your argument depends on it. Now spiration is addition difference, pulling the rug under your false syllogism.  Either the Son having everything includes spiriation, or it doesn't.

Quote
The Father spirates the Spirit as the Father who is monarch, and source without source. The Son, on the other hand, spirates the Spirit by participation because the everything the Son has, comes from the Father, so the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really From the Father through the Son and is done in unison with the Father as a single source.
So the Spirit is a third rate God.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on July 22, 2010, 01:05:03 PM
I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
On this Point:

"IF any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him (Rom. viii, 9). These words of the Apostle show that the same Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: for the text alleged follows upon these words immediately preceding: If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now it cannot be said that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit merely of the man Christ (Luke iv, 3): for from Gal. iv, 6, Since ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, it appears that the Holy Ghost makes sons of God inasmuch as He is the Spirit of the Son of God, -- sons of God, that is to say, by adoption, which means assimilation to Him who is Son of God by nature. For so the text has it: He hath predestined (them) to become conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29). But the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Spirit of the Son of God except as taking His origin from Him: for this distinction of origin is the only one admissible in the Godhead."  - St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG)

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

I get what you are saying. Yet, you really have not answered my first question, which was "Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?" As you may surmise, I ask this because the one Creed that the entire Church agreed to does not contain the Filioque. So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.
Yes, it is that important because I believe that it is orthodox, scriptural, and patrisitc. It is true. Just as you do not want to sacrifice truth for unity, neither do we.

But you have:every "Union" agreement between the Vatican and those who have submitted to it give up the whole array (filioque, mandated clerical celebacy, etc.) that it has dogmatized as so important.

Quote
Perhaps, I can ask the same question in this way: Is the RCC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the entire Body of Christ, starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all, through the Seven Ecumenical Councils? I realize that any answer to this question will involve a rethinking of the role of the Pope, not only in the Roman Church but in the entire Body.
We have the same understanding of our Church that you have of yours. We would similarly ask, "Is the EOC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the Body of Christ, starting by accepting the Latin Fathers and all the councils, not just the first seven?"

Because you have contradicted yourself on your number 8, and 9-21 directly contradict 1-7 that you accept.

And you do not ask about the authority of the Body of Christ: it's that much vaunted "visible head" that your councils claim that you want us to put the Body of Christ under.

Quote
I think that fact that each of our Churches sees itself as the true Church and the Body of Christ, will keep us from being able to achieve unity with one another this side of Heaven. But who knows. God is not limited and can perform the miralce that is required to restore unity if he sees fit.
Amen.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on July 22, 2010, 01:09:33 PM

Dear Papist,

No, I am suggesting that the filioque insertion leads etymological problems that can lead to heresy.  The problem lies in confusing the co-equality of the substance with the personhood of each member.  Based on the other posts here, the Latin term is much more loosely understood that the original Greek, but this looseness of definition is precisely the problem.

The Father is the Father.  He alone eternally-begets the Son and from Whom eternally-proceeds the Holy Spirit.  To attribute some of His personal attribute to the Son leads to confusion of the Persons, which then can stray in all sorts of bizarre directions that neither the OC nor the RC want.  The Creed in its original form confirms this, and the later accretion confuses our temporal reception of the Holy Spirit with His eternal procession.

Let me add that I do not think that the RCC is guilty of the heresy of Subordinationism or the like, but I do think that it would do the RCC no harm to remove the insistence on this accretion without harming it theology.  The filioque is utterly dispensible, protecting no one from anything.


Do you think that the lack of filioque then seems to suggest that the Spirit and the Son are not co-equal with the Father then?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 22, 2010, 01:38:00 PM
When Christ says that the Son has all the Father has, it is not a generic statement. It's context is thus:

Quote
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.

He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you.

All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he taketh of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you.
St. John 16:7-15

The "all" Christ is referring to is the Glory of God. "All things..." is an explanation of why "He shall glorify me...". And to make it not dubious, the Apostle even wrote "therefore said I" and then mentioned the previous verse.

Therefore the use of this verse to support the Filioque does not stand.

On the other hand, even if the verse was ambiguous, Christ states rather bluntantly in St. John 15:26

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me"

Here we have the Orthodox Catholic missionary sending, that is, Christ sends the Spirit in a manner analogous to how He sent the Apostles and the Orthodox Catholic sentence that was used as reference for the Symbol of Faith. If there was any such identiy between Father and Son, this would be the place for Christ to have said it. Not only He didn't, but He made a clear distinctiong between the Son sending missionarily the Spirit to the world and procession from the Father.

Plus, the ex post fact RC explanation for the filioque (that it is a sending analagous but different from that of the Father) does not hold simply because both Father and Son are subjects of the same verb of which the Spirit is the object. In no context one would understand in the sentence "They are from U.S. and Canada" that this "are" means for US that they originated their and for Canada that they were just passing through the country.

Finally, the Symbol is written using the figure of speech of parallelism. It describes the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit describe for each precisely that which differentiates each from the other:


So, be begotten of God is exclusive of the Son
To proceed from the Father is exclusive of the Holy Spirit.

What is then exclusive of the Father? He is All-Mighty, the only one who is the cause of all potential. *Only* Him, can be cause to other persons of the Trinity. What is that then, that comes *through* the Son?


That is, what comes *through* the Son is only the created world. Not persons of the Trinity.

Finally, once these three distinctions were established: a Father Who is the only "source" of both created and uncreated things, a Son Who is begotten from the Father and a Spirit who proceeds from the Father (and here quoting Christ Himself), their essential unity is expressed in:


The inclusion of "and of the Son" breaks the intended paralellism because it puts the Son and the Father doing the same action and therefore destroying any difference between them.

Now, and this is not meant as an offence, it is not surprising that the this inclusion would be forced upon the Western Church by an illiterate emperor. While in Toledo where this inclusion was first introduced and tolerated by ekonomia of the Primate, they were probably well aware of the difference and the context in which it was being done, the imposition of this element in places where there was no heresy about the Holy Spirit was itself a heresy and a corruption of the very words of Christ.

In very prosaic terms, IMO what I think that happened was that the East was used to heretical emperors trying to tamper with the Faith and the Church learned to recover with time. In the West this had long been forgotten, so when a new emperor emerged imposing this heresy, there was no experience nor humbleness posteriorly to admit that a secular power had messed with the faith and that it could and should be corrected.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: visitor on July 22, 2010, 03:04:47 PM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son, ergo the Son in not God and Man...I don't follow this train of thought. Could you expand on what you mean by this?

Hi.

My logical argument is at the head of the thread. To say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son creates a dialectical contradiction between Christ's two natures. The doctrine of the trinity is supposed to be an infinite knot, you know; but the west managed to unravel it, starting with the Filioque.

I merely cited wording from the Creed itself to demonstrate that the Filioque deconstructs even the very text into which it was inserted.


I still don't see how it creatres a contradiction between Christ's two natures. Can you explain?
Me neither, although my head usually spins anytime the Holy Trinity is discussed since it is pretty much impossible to completely wrap your head around the concept.

Why is it that only Orthodox Christians and analytic philosophers can understand metaphysical concepts? Maybe you should read some Aristotle.

Let's turn this around. Maybe you can tell me how it is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in such a way that the Son does not become the Father. 

Here's the point: In every analysis of Filioque dialectic, the Son's humanity is ultimately minimized (which leads to a more or less necessary Mariolatry--sound familiar?), and the substance of the Holy Spirit is supressed (leading to a necessary dependence upon rules and formulas---sound familiar?).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 22, 2010, 03:32:33 PM
At the most basic level, Filioque is indefensible because, according to the Synods, nothing can be added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That said, since the 12th century, Latin theology has tried to justify its insertion for reasons other than were used when it was erroneously inserted in the first place in 6th century Spain. To give it up would be to admit they were wrong.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on July 22, 2010, 03:59:53 PM
I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
On this Point:

"IF any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him (Rom. viii, 9). These words of the Apostle show that the same Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: for the text alleged follows upon these words immediately preceding: If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now it cannot be said that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit merely of the man Christ (Luke iv, 3): for from Gal. iv, 6, Since ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, it appears that the Holy Ghost makes sons of God inasmuch as He is the Spirit of the Son of God, -- sons of God, that is to say, by adoption, which means assimilation to Him who is Son of God by nature. For so the text has it: He hath predestined (them) to become conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29). But the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Spirit of the Son of God except as taking His origin from Him: for this distinction of origin is the only one admissible in the Godhead."  - St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG)

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

I get what you are saying. Yet, you really have not answered my first question, which was "Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?" As you may surmise, I ask this because the one Creed that the entire Church agreed to does not contain the Filioque. So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.
Yes, it is that important because I believe that it is orthodox, scriptural, and patrisitc. It is true. Just as you do not want to sacrifice truth for unity, neither do we.
Perhaps, I can ask the same question in this way: Is the RCC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the entire Body of Christ, starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all, through the Seven Ecumenical Councils? I realize that any answer to this question will involve a rethinking of the role of the Pope, not only in the Roman Church but in the entire Body.
We have the same understanding of our Church that you have of yours. We would similarly ask, "Is the EOC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the Body of Christ, starting by accepting the Latin Fathers and all the councils, not just the first seven?"

I think that fact that each of our Churches sees itself as the true Church and the Body of Christ, will keep us from being able to achieve unity with one another this side of Heaven. But who knows. God is not limited and can perform the miralce that is required to restore unity if he sees fit.


Amen also to your last sentiment. However, it is not logical for you to state that the Orthodox can rejoin the Church. We never left Her, but y'all presumed (as some Orthodox now think about the EOC) that you could go on without the rest of the Church as if you were The Church. Does not make logical or historical sense to me. Now, we may end up accepting the Latin Fathers and all of the later councils (of both East and West) but we must start from the Seventh Ecumenical Council and not a day after. Another absolute requirement for any give on our part must be the RCC's renunciation of the extraordinary powers that have accrued to the Bishop of Rome. We now have two distinct ecclesiologies; with the EOC holding on to what was common to both, while y'all have gone, in Star Trek fashion, boldly into uncharted and frankly erroneous regions of outer space. Come on down to Earth and rejoin the Church is all that we ask.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on July 22, 2010, 04:42:47 PM
At last I have found a credible account of this Filioque business. Here is the gist of it:

""Tonight I will be giving you what I consider, based on my years of painsgiving research, to be the diminutive Orthodox version of the events leading up to that momentary day in July of 1054 which is usually marked as the tourniquet point in the relationship between the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic Church, and those guys in Rome.

"Now as you know, phyllo dough is an issue-thin pastry dough used by the Greeks in making balaklava and other melt-in-your-mouth pasties. What you may not have been aware of, however, is that Cardinal Humbert, the embarassy of the Pope sent in 1054 to Constantinople to heal the growing beach between the Latin and Greek churches, was a man obsessed with phyllo dough. Or to be more concise, with its irradiation. Cardinal Humbert, among his many flaws, sins, and shortcomings as a human being, also — and I can't stretch this highly enough — simply despised phyllo dough.
Where was I? Oh, yes. Anyway, on that cross-eyed summer day, Cardinal Humbert stood at the doors of the great Church of the Holy Wisdom — Hagia Sophia — in Constantinople and asked the passers by in his rustic Iberian Latin, 'Phyllo — que?' Or, 'Phyllo — what?' to paraphrase abruptly.

"Unfortunately for the relationship between the two great eclectial bodies, nobody in the streets of Constantinople that fitful day spoke Iberian Latin too terribly well. They thought he said 'filioque' ('and from the son'), and so the rumour started that the Latins had added a new word to the Nicene Creed.

"Early on in this process, Cardinal Humbert could easily have put an end to the rumours by standing up and exaspirating to the people that the Latins had not, in fact, added any words to the creed. Unfortunately we are not talking about a man of dazzling intellegence. This was not the brightest bulb in the cutlery drawer. Oh, no. When the rumours came back around to Cardinal Humbert, he believed them, and immediately added the word 'filioque' to the St. Joseph's Handy Pocket Missal he always carried on his person, thinking, repairently, that he had somehow missed the papal bull which decreed its addition.

"Meanwhile back in Old Rome, the Latins had broke wind of the rumour and themselves believed it — and immediately set about adding the word to their missals small and great. The Pope's team of crack theologians (which would one day evolve into the Jesuits) quickly began writing treatises on double procession and why this was what the Latin church had always, in fact, believed.

"And so the error spread until all bishops under the Pope of Rome required their priests to insert the offending word into their missals. The Monestary of Kubaan, which hand-copied all the missals used by the Latin church, suddenly found its services in high demand: much higher, in fact, than it could commodiate; thus giving rise to the famous Kubaan Missal Crisis of 1063." From a lecture by the eminent professor Yeraslav Penguin, St. Gregory Palamas Professor of Liturgical History at St. Toucan's Orthodox Seminary and Roadside Icon Shoppe.

http://theoniondome.blogspot.com/ (http://theoniondome.blogspot.com/) Go to the June 10, 2010 entry.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 22, 2010, 04:57:18 PM
At the most basic level, Filioque is indefensible because, according to the Synods, nothing can be added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That said, since the 12th century, Latin theology has tried to justify its insertion for reasons other than were used when it was erroneously inserted in the first place in 6th century Spain. To give it up would be to admit they were wrong.

Apologies for missing the Christological dimension of the OP. I think part of the misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit's procession comes from the Latin word "procedit" is simply not as precise as the Greek "ekporevete." The Greek means to proceed from a source, the Latin does not have this distinction. The double procession of the Holy Spirit the Latins teach, IMHO, distorts the teaching of the Father a bit more than the teaching of the son. We forget about the Father in all this, it seems to me. Filioque also makes the Holy Spirit subordinate. I still have trouble seeing how Filioque touches on the natures of Christ. It seems to me if we look at it primarily as a Christological problem, we make the same presumption that instituted Filioque in the first place.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: augustin717 on July 22, 2010, 05:11:46 PM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.
Then he must also proceed from himself, since he shares the same essence, which is utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 22, 2010, 05:23:15 PM
At the most basic level, Filioque is indefensible because, according to the Synods, nothing can be added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That said, since the 12th century, Latin theology has tried to justify its insertion for reasons other than were used when it was erroneously inserted in the first place in 6th century Spain. To give it up would be to admit they were wrong.

Apologies for missing the Christological dimension of the OP. I think part of the misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit's procession comes from the Latin word "procedit" is simply not as precise as the Greek "ekporevete." The Greek means to proceed from a source, the Latin does not have this distinction. The double procession of the Holy Spirit the Latins teach, IMHO, distorts the teaching of the Father a bit more than the teaching of the son. We forget about the Father in all this, it seems to me. Filioque also makes the Holy Spirit subordinate. I still have trouble seeing how Filioque touches on the natures of Christ. It seems to me if we look at it primarily as a Christological problem, we make the same presumption that instituted Filioque in the first place.

I think that what they missed was the parallelism in the Creed. Literacy had fallen very much in the West at that time and although translating individual words can be done in a rudimentary way if you have some kind of dictionary, figures of speech that are constructed through the cohesion of the text paragraphs require a higher level of literacy that quite a few people don't have in their own languages and much less in reading a foreign language text with near to no education in their own. After Charlesmagne succeed in imposing the filioque over and despite the protests of even the pope, the papacy entered its real dark ages and was hostage to the proto-mafia families of Italy and with the help of the French (the mature Franks) only could come out of it. After all this turmoil, the events regarding the insertion of the filioque were blurred and it was considered an accomplished fact to be explained and not questioned.

And the consequence of the lack of distinction between the Father and the Son turns the RC God from a Trinity into a Dinity: Fatherson-Holy Spirit. Indeed, it is a kind of restricted modalism, wherein Father and Son are just modes of the same entity.
There are only two kinds of attributes in God. Those who are common to all the Three Persons and pertain to His divinity, and those that are particular of each person. Fatherson-Spirit creates the idea that in fact all attributes are common between the Father and the Son only and that the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the two for not sharing in the causation of Persons. In the True, Triune God, Causation of Persons is just the unique attribute of the Father. That is why the Spirit of the Diune god is weaker. He is defined by what he does not share with two persons who are, for all purposes exactly the same.

This weakened Spirit, obviously cannot manifest the Son perfectly on Earth. Something is lacking in him and even in that Son that is just a mode of Fatherson. Hence, the need for a material medium for the expression of that Son that is indistinguishable: either a bishop or a book,which then completes what is lacking in the Spirit.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:30:10 PM
heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

Then why not just use "heterodoxy" instead?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:31:21 PM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

I think it important here to not get into Biblical hermeneutics. This issue has had a lot of ink spilled over it.


But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

The results of the Filioque have been utterly predictable. Diaphysite Christiology has been utterly marginalized in the West, the Trinity has acquired a vertical hierarchy (which error sparked the Protestant reformation), and the Mother of God has been made the suffering sweetheart of the most Gothic family romance in history... You think I'm wrong? Look at the art.



In summary, a thoroughgoing understanding of diaphysite Christology immediately reveals the error, and even a cursory view of the Filioque's history exposes the doctrine for what it is...

If you are suggesting that the West is inclined to Monophysitism, I must say I find such a suggestion completely absurd.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:33:01 PM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

Perhaps if you are thinking only in terms of what the Holy Spirit is issuing forth from.

However, if you consider who actually generates the Holy Spirit by spiration, the idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son becomes more questionable.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:35:56 PM
Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?

I don't think anyone has ever said the the Son is eternally born of the Spirit.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:37:05 PM
And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

???

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:44:01 PM
Aquinas Argues:

"The Father and the Son, being one in essence, differ only in this, that He is the Father, and He the Son. Everything else is common to Father and Son. But being the origin of the Holy Ghost lies outside of the relationship of paternity and filiation: for the relation whereby the Father is Father differs from the relation whereby the Father is the origin of the Holy Ghost. Being the origin then of the Holy Ghost is something common to Father and Son."
-Summa Contra Gentiles

It may sound logical to you, but it certainly does not to me. Aquinas is failing to make the general distinction between ontological relationships and oringinations in the Trinity and the ontology (Essence itself). As a consequence, he is somehow coming up with the illogical idea that the Son must share in all other realities besides that which distinguishes Him from His Originator. However, the Essence common to the Son and the Father is a different reality from their relationship to each other. Ontological relationships in the Trinity in general (rather than just the filiation) are a different reality from the Essence. Therefore, for the Father and Son to be one in Essence, it does not require that the Son share in an ontological relationship that is distinct from His own ontological originiation.

And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:45:57 PM
Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?

What does it matter? Unity could not be achieved at this point even if they simply omitted the filioque clause from the Creed.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:48:15 PM
"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

Except that the procession/spiration of the Holy Spirit isn't even a possession.  ::)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:50:55 PM
Aquinas Argues:

"The Father and the Son, being one in essence, differ only in this, that He is the Father, and He the Son. Everything else is common to Father and Son.

I'm wondering whence Aquinas derived this striking principle. Can this actually be found in Patristic teaching, or is it, as I suspect, an artificial construct made to justify the Filioque ex post facto?




I think it is a requirement of the doctrine of the Unity of the Trinity. But I will look into Patristic support. I was under the impression that Eastern Orthodox Christians believed that the persons of the Trinity had all things in common except those things that were proper to each person, those things that distinguished them from one another.

No. We understand that they hold in common all things that are part of their actual being (Essence), which is different from the means by which they are (Unoriginate, Filiated/Begotten, Spirated/Proceeded).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:53:32 PM
Nobody ever seems to bring up how the Son is begotten of the Father and born of the Holy Spirit. How is that not the same alleged "subordination" in the other direction?
\

I just want to make sure that I understand what you are stating. Are you saying that the Word is being born of the Holy Spirit in time due to His temporal mission just as the Son sends the Holy Spirit in His Temporal mission without being the cause of His procession in the Godhead? Or are you saying that the Son is born of the Holy Spirit as part of their relationship in the Godhead? Forgive me if i have bumbled through this question. I hope you understand what I mean.
When the EO argue that the filioque subordinates the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son because he is the only person that does generate another person, they are doing so based on the following premise: "If one person proceeds from another, then the one who proceeds is subordinate from the one from whom he proceeds".
But if one accepts that premise then the only conclusion is that in the EO view of the Trinity, the Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be co-equal with the Father because they both find their origin in the Father.

Because I know that EOs see the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as co-equal, then the premise of their apologetic argument must be false and cannot be applied to the filoque. Thus, the attempt to "debunk" the Filioque on the part of EOs is invalid.

No, it is actually on the premise that beyond the Father playing a personal role as the one Originator in the Trinity, that the Son is given some sort of privilege of Spirating the Spirit with the Father, while the Spirit is not given the privilege of Filiating/Begetting the Son with the Father. There is no conception of originating necessarily subordinating in the way that you are suggesting.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:56:47 PM
Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has. This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

Again, no, because the Spiration/Procession of the Holy Spirit is not a possession, and because the Hypostases are not only distinct in their relationship to each other. It is more clear to say that they are distinct in the manner in which they exist and possess the Divine Essence.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 06:58:20 PM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.
I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. [bgcolor=#ffff00]Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has.[/bgcolor] This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.

That being said, because the the distinction of Paternity and Sonship is what distinguishes the Father and the Son, this distinction makes the relationship of each to the procession of the Spirit different. The Father spirates the Spirit as the Father who is monarch, and source without source. The Son, on the other hand, spirates the Spirit by participation because the everything the Son has, comes from the Father, so the procession of the Spirit from the Son, is really From the Father through the Son and is done in unison with the Father as a single source.

Yes, but which nature is speaking when He says this.

Welcome to Byzantium.


"Which nature is speaking"?!

OK, welcome to Nestorian-land.  ::)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 07:00:52 PM
So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.

Your church has already determined it to be theological, and the Orientals have even agreed to this in the Agreed Statements.

starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all

De-dogmatizing of beliefs is not enough if those beliefs have already been condemned. For unity, condemned beliefs must be condemned by those who are to reunite to the Church, not just de-dogmatized.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 22, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
I think that fact that each of our Churches sees itself as the true Church and the Body of Christ, will keep us from being able to achieve unity with one another this side of Heaven.

I don't like this way of looking at things. For all we know, given the common faultiness of individual logic, we could very well have determined the identity of the Church of Christ incorrectly. That's why these religious communities must be always open to scrutiny and criticism on the basis of the Tradition of the Undivided Church, in the period of time where we know for sure which Church was the Church because there was only one real Christian community in Christendom.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on July 22, 2010, 07:45:51 PM
And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

???

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.
Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 22, 2010, 08:13:44 PM
Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

There are three distinct Persons in the Holy Trinity. The Son is not the selfsame Person of the Father.
I agree. But they are distinguished as persons, not in their essence. Christ points out that everything the Father has, the Son has. This means that they must share all things in common, except what distinguishes them from one another. Since the thing that distinquished the Father and the Son is the Father's Paternity with regard to the Son and the Son's Sonship with regard to the Father, then they are not distinguished by the procession of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the procession of the Spirit must be something that is common to both the Father and the Son.
On what foundation do you base this idea that the only distinction between the Father and the Son is the Father's paternity and the Son's begottenness?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 22, 2010, 09:07:14 PM
Why is it that only Orthodox Christians and analytic philosophers can understand metaphysical concepts? Maybe you should read some Aristotle.
Are you really so arrogant as to presume to understand fully the nature of the Trinity? How can a finite mind fully grasp the infinite? I really think these debates regarding the filioque are a waste of breath. It's a bunch of humans flopping around trying to understand that which cannot be understood, God Himself.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 23, 2010, 12:04:29 AM
And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

???

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.
Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."

Oh, you were trying to convey that some among them teach that the procession from the Son is temporal?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 23, 2010, 12:05:23 AM
Why is it that only Orthodox Christians and analytic philosophers can understand metaphysical concepts? Maybe you should read some Aristotle.
Are you really so arrogant as to presume to understand fully the nature of the Trinity? How can a finite mind fully grasp the infinite? I really think these debates regarding the filioque are a waste of breath. It's a bunch of humans flopping around trying to understand that which cannot be understood, God Himself.

We are talking about what has been revealed here, not an exhaustive understanding of the Godhead.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: visitor on July 23, 2010, 09:57:27 AM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

I think it important here to not get into Biblical hermeneutics. This issue has had a lot of ink spilled over it.


But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

The results of the Filioque have been utterly predictable. Diaphysite Christiology has been utterly marginalized in the West, the Trinity has acquired a vertical hierarchy (which error sparked the Protestant reformation), and the Mother of God has been made the suffering sweetheart of the most Gothic family romance in history... You think I'm wrong? Look at the art.



In summary, a thoroughgoing understanding of diaphysite Christology immediately reveals the error, and even a cursory view of the Filioque's history exposes the doctrine for what it is...

If you are suggesting that the West is inclined to Monophysitism, I must say I find such a suggestion completely absurd.


That's exactly what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on July 23, 2010, 10:37:11 AM


And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.
Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: visitor on July 23, 2010, 11:23:32 AM


And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.
Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.

Do you dare disagree with Thomistic logic?!?!? Thou.... Protestant!!!!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on July 23, 2010, 11:55:29 AM
And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

???

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.
Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."

Oh, you were trying to convey that some among them teach that the procession from the Son is temporal?
Correct.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 23, 2010, 01:18:06 PM


And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.
Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.

But of course that if one added a "spiritoque" like this:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father and of the Spirit before all worlds"

the ex post facto explanation could be that it is "obvious" that the begotteness of the Son from Spirit is not exactly the same as that of the Father. The Father is the only true causation while the Son is begotten in the world through the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary, in the Church and in the hearts of Men. And of course this analysis is correct, yet, the text of the Creed is a context in which the addition of the "spiritoque" would have a very different meaning, as does the filioque.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 24, 2010, 01:30:24 AM
That's exactly what I'm saying.

Do you read church history at all? Historically the West has been inclined to Nestorianism, if anything.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 24, 2010, 01:33:11 AM


And again, as others have pointed out, if we are to take Aquinas' faulty logic as true; if the Holy Spirit differs from the Father only in Him being the Spirated and the Father being the Spirator, then logically He must also possess the Begetting of the Son.
Then that would make him a Father to the Son which is contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit. try again.

How is it contrary to the personhood of the Holy Spirit? I don't see how that fits the logic you are using. The only difference between the persons is their relationships to each other, remember? Well what are the relationships to the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit to the Father is the Holy Spirit is the Spirated and the Father is the Spirator. Same with the Son. So why then shouldn't the Holy Spirit share the begetting of the Son with the Father? That doesn't appear to be qualified by the differences of their relationships.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on July 24, 2010, 01:34:20 AM
And, to be fair, many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally, from the Son.

???

The Holy Spirit is temporally sent from the Son.
Right; I should have said: "many Catholics argue that the H.S. is sent, temporally but not originally, from the Son."

Oh, you were trying to convey that some among them teach that the procession from the Son is temporal?
Correct.

OK! Got it.

Iconodule made a good point that that is clearly contrary to their dogmatic tradition.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Dave in McKinney on July 24, 2010, 09:23:34 AM
This topic is pretty "heady" stuff for someone like me...  but I am wondering what the practical results of the filioque are in (Roman) Catholic and Protestant realms.

I was cradle Catholic and then went Methodist for a few years.  And I was surprised that during prayers, for the most part all were done "in Jesus' name" as opposed to "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"... is this any relation to topic at hand?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 12:36:33 PM
Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 24, 2010, 12:49:43 PM
Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 03:33:33 PM
Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

What you've done with that teaching here in your short form is warp it and distort it so that it has no parity with actual Catholic teaching.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 24, 2010, 03:35:57 PM
Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.
So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 24, 2010, 06:07:44 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

And would you like to know? You won't even have to take my word on it, and check later.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 06:13:05 PM
Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.
So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?

Of a different order yes.  That is what the whole issue of "order" is about.

Jesus did not say the Father and the Holy Spirit and I are ONE.  So in some principled manner, the Father and Son are ONE in a way that the Holy Spirit is not. 

That has been the mystery from the beginning and the entire reason there had to be a separate theology worked out for the Holy Spirit.

They are in essence, ONE.  But in Principle they are separate Persons with a particular order that is both Scriptural and from Tradition.

Also, any mathematician knows that not every order is a RANK order, going from lowest to highest or hightest to lowest.

Orders can simple be different in principle.

Mary
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 24, 2010, 06:27:00 PM
Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.
So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?

Of a different order yes.  That is what the whole issue of "order" is about.

Jesus did not say the Father and the Holy Spirit and I are ONE.  So in some principled manner, the Father and Son are ONE in a way that the Holy Spirit is not.
For this argument from silence to really work, you have to first establish that you know the mind of Christ well enough to know what He chose not to say.  I don't think anyone can assert that kind of knowledge, so let's hold ourselves to what He did say and not project onto Him what we think He should have said.

That has been the mystery from the beginning and the entire reason there had to be a separate theology worked out for the Holy Spirit.

They are in essence, ONE.  But in Principle they are separate Persons with a particular order that is both Scriptural and from Tradition.
Yes, even the Cappadocian Fathers who articulated the foundation of Orthodox triadology recognized that there is some order and separation of persons in the Godhead.  They just didn't conceive of this order the same way the Latins would centuries later.  For one, the Cappadocian Fathers conceived of the Holy Trinity as emanating from the one principle of the monarchy of the Father, NOT from the diarchy of the Father and the Son.

Also, any mathematician knows that not every order is a RANK order, going from lowest to highest or hightest to lowest.
Yes, even the Orthodox understand this, which is why we don't think of the Son and the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father even though they both draw their life from Him.  It's like the relationship I have with my earthly father; I am in no way less of a human than he is just because I'm his son.  I owe my father the honor due his memory out of love for him, but that doesn't mean that I'm ontologically inferior to him.

Orders can simple be different in principle.
You won't find any disagreement with me on this principle.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 06:34:20 PM
Many of the assertions in this thread concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit are based upon the notion that there is not only no consubstantial ordering in the Trinity but also that there is no hypostatic ordering in the Trinity.

That is not a new issue and it was raised with St. Basil the Great in fact and he wrote a letter where he addresses this questoin of the Holy Spirit in relationship to the Father and the Son, whose relationship is said to be ONE and does not include the Holy Spirit:

In Basil’s Letter 52.4 (PG 32, 396B-C), he asks:

“But what madness is this, when one is the Unbegotten, to say that there is another one that is above the Unbegotten? For there is nothing that stands in the mean position between Son and Father…. Thus, this innovation concerning order holds forth a negation of the very existence [of the Trinity], and is a denial of the whole faith. It is equally impious, either to reduce [the Holy Spirit] to the level of a creature, or to set him above either Son or Father, either with respect to time, or with respect to order.”

I would be happy if any one of you or several could explain this very clear response to the assertion that there is no order of the Persons of the Trinity.

M.

Of course there is an order. That is not being discussed. What Catholic tradition holds contrary to RC later belief is that 1) just like the Son sends the Spirit to the world, the Spirit begets the Son in the world. If "filioque" meant this secondary relation since the Father is the only true origin of the Personhoods, than we should have a "spiritoque"; 2) There are only two kinds of attributes in God: those that pertain to God and those that are exclusive to each person; "filioque", deviating from the truth, creates a third category that is an atribute that pertains to two and not to one; 3) the introduction of the filioque in the Creed did not follow even from the Iberic tradition that first originated it in a very specific context, but was the imposition of a heretical emperor-wannabe who used it as a pretext to proclaim independence from the Roman Empire. Unlike the Easterns who were used to heretical monarchs and always healed from such troubles, Westerns never managed to get rid of this imperial intervention.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  This sounds a lot like Ortho-history to me.

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.
So the Father and the Son are indeed one principle and the Holy Spirit is another principle?

Of a different order yes.  That is what the whole issue of "order" is about.

Jesus did not say the Father and the Holy Spirit and I are ONE.  So in some principled manner, the Father and Son are ONE in a way that the Holy Spirit is not.
For this argument from silence to really work, you have to first establish that you know the mind of Christ well enough to know what He chose not to say.  I don't think anyone can assert that kind of knowledge, so let's hold ourselves to what He did say and not project onto Him what we think He should have said.

That has been the mystery from the beginning and the entire reason there had to be a separate theology worked out for the Holy Spirit.

They are in essence, ONE.  But in Principle they are separate Persons with a particular order that is both Scriptural and from Tradition.
Yes, even the Cappadocian Fathers who articulated the foundation of Orthodox triadology recognized that there is some order and separation of persons in the Godhead.  They just didn't conceive of this order the same way the Latins would centuries later.  For one, the Cappadocian Fathers conceived of the Holy Trinity as emanating from the one principle of the monarchy of the Father, NOT from the diarchy of the Father and the Son.

Also, any mathematician knows that not every order is a RANK order, going from lowest to highest or hightest to lowest.
Yes, even the Orthodox understand this, which is why we don't think of the Son and the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father even though they both draw their life from Him.

Orders can simple be different in principle.
You won't find any disagreement with me on this principle.

We are very close here now.

I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 24, 2010, 06:36:14 PM
Yes, even the Cappadocian Fathers who articulated the foundation of Orthodox triadology recognized that there is some order and separation of persons in the Godhead.  They just didn't conceive of this order the same way the Latins would centuries later.  For one, the Cappadocian Fathers conceived of the Holy Trinity as emanating from the one principle of the monarchy of the Father, NOT from the diarchy of the Father and the Son.


That's why I usually say the RC god, despite being named a Trinity, when taken analitically is Dinity: Fatherson-Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 24, 2010, 06:48:20 PM
Quote
So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

Here lies the problem. Once again RC say something and explains it away with its opposite.

In the Creed, in the context, the sentence is talking about the generative principle.

The Father is almighty (the source of all potentiality, including that of the Personhoods)
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds of the Father.

What RC twists in the text is the idea that the verb can have two different meanings despite the complement being compound. It is like saying that "Jack comes to Mexico from Canada and the U.S" and then push the case to say that it's not the case of a meaningless phrase as it is, but that in fact you're saying that he comes from Canada through the U.S. Although it is obvious that this is the best route, the sentence itself is badly constructed, for as it is, it implies two simulteanous points of origin.

The whole point is:the explanation the RC gives is not in the text. Plus, the filioque as it exists today was introduced by Charlesmagne with the opposition of the "infallible" pope of the time. *All* explanations came much later to support the imperial decree.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 08:06:19 PM
Quote
So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

Here lies the problem. Once again RC say something and explains it away with its opposite.

In the Creed, in the context, the sentence is talking about the generative principle.

The Father is almighty (the source of all potentiality, including that of the Personhoods)
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds of the Father.

What RC twists in the text is the idea that the verb can have two different meanings despite the complement being compound. It is like saying that "Jack comes to Mexico from Canada and the U.S" and then push the case to say that it's not the case of a meaningless phrase as it is, but that in fact you're saying that he comes from Canada through the U.S. Although it is obvious that this is the best route, the sentence itself is badly constructed, for as it is, it implies two simulteanous points of origin.

The whole point is:the explanation the RC gives is not in the text. Plus, the filioque as it exists today was introduced by Charlesmagne with the opposition of the "infallible" pope of the time. *All* explanations came much later to support the imperial decree.

Bad history, worse theology.  I am very sorry but that's the only play I am going to give this kind of "analysis."   Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.  You need to have it this way and I am not going to stop you by any means.  So I will only spend the time to simply flat out say it is at very least, misguided thinking.

Mary
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 24, 2010, 10:43:17 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 11:38:54 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 25, 2010, 12:16:10 AM
Quote
So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.

Here lies the problem. Once again RC say something and explains it away with its opposite.

In the Creed, in the context, the sentence is talking about the generative principle.

The Father is almighty (the source of all potentiality, including that of the Personhoods)
The Son is begotten of the Father
The Spirit proceeds of the Father.

What RC twists in the text is the idea that the verb can have two different meanings despite the complement being compound. It is like saying that "Jack comes to Mexico from Canada and the U.S" and then push the case to say that it's not the case of a meaningless phrase as it is, but that in fact you're saying that he comes from Canada through the U.S. Although it is obvious that this is the best route, the sentence itself is badly constructed, for as it is, it implies two simulteanous points of origin.

The whole point is:the explanation the RC gives is not in the text. Plus, the filioque as it exists today was introduced by Charlesmagne with the opposition of the "infallible" pope of the time. *All* explanations came much later to support the imperial decree.

Bad history, worse theology.  I am very sorry but that's the only play I am going to give this kind of "analysis."   Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.  You need to have it this way and I am not going to stop you by any means.  So I will only spend the time to simply flat out say it is at very least, misguided thinking.

Mary

Good to know you admit calling it names is your best argument. Even to historical facts. :) Maybe a kinder garten attendent will get scared, who knows? :)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 12:19:36 AM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.


Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 25, 2010, 12:45:16 AM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on July 25, 2010, 01:04:17 AM
Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.

If you are serious about anything that you write, you might as well trade in your keyboard for a pair of clown shoes, as scripture and tradition command.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 25, 2010, 01:42:04 AM
Honestly, it is not worth the effort save for the fact that someone else might at least see some cause to question what you are saying here.

If you are serious about anything that you write, you might as well trade in your keyboard for a pair of clown shoes, as scripture and tradition command.
What is that supposed to mean? ???
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 10:58:06 AM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Oh...I hate ringing hollow.  Perhaps some other time then.

Mary
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: OnThePathForward on July 25, 2010, 03:06:09 PM
I finally made it through this entire thread and I was hoping elijahmaria would continue to answer the question that PeterTheAleut had asked.  What  a good discussion.  I look forward to reading more on this :)

-OnThePathForward
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 25, 2010, 03:18:45 PM
Leo forbade the addition of filioque to the Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of orthodox faith).[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_III
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 06:41:49 PM
I finally made it through this entire thread and I was hoping elijahmaria would continue to answer the question that PeterTheAleut had asked.  What  a good discussion.  I look forward to reading more on this :)

-OnThePathForward

I had a more elaborate note that hasn't been posted yet explaining that it will take time, but I will not just let it go.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 06:41:49 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 25, 2010, 08:31:48 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 25, 2010, 09:37:15 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.
How is that different than the Catholic teaching?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 25, 2010, 10:49:31 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.
How is that different than the Catholic teaching?
I don't know.  I hope that Mary or one of our other Catholics will clarify what their church's teaching is on this so your question can get an answer. ;)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 10:50:45 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

Yes.  Proceeds does get to be confusing doesn't it.  Well then let's use "sends" ....

Who sends the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation?

"The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.'"[Luke 1:35]

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Iconodule on July 25, 2010, 10:54:52 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.
How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"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."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 25, 2010, 11:10:37 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.

Yes.  Proceeds does get to be confusing doesn't it.  Well then let's use "sends" ....

Who sends the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation?
So, when you say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, His procession from the Father and the Son is that of one who is sent--e.g., sent to come upon the Theotokos at the Annunciation, sent to descend upon the Church at Pentecost, etc.?

"The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.'"[Luke 1:35]
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 25, 2010, 11:23:12 PM
How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"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."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.
Yes, I do see that in this excerpt of the online version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church published by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/catechism (http://www.usccb.org/catechism)):

Quote
B. Para. 246. The 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 one (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one inspiration. . . . 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” (Council of Florence [1439]: DS 1300-1301).
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/trinity8.shtml (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/quizzes/trinity8.shtml)


The problem I have with this teaching is that it introduces a second unitive principle to compete with the monarchy of the Father, which thus results in a quasi-modalist breakdown of the distinctions between the Father and the Son.  Traditionally, the Orthodox Church has believed as Ss. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory the Theologian taught us that the two axiomatic principles in the tri-unity of the Godhead are the Monarchy of the Father and the distinction of Divine Persons.  That which unites the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the unique Monarchy of the Father--the Father begets the Son and spirates the Holy Spirit--and the bond of the perfect communion of love that flows between the three Divine Persons.  And just as Orthodoxy understands its dogma to apply to our understanding of our salvation, so it is in this case.  We understand from our experience of what God has revealed of His tri-unity of Persons that we are to be saved as a multiplicity of human persons united by our worship of our Creator and our communion of love for one another.  Any breakdown in our theology is therefore a breakdown in our soteriology.

In the Latin triadology expressed in the phrase "as from one principle" we see almost a modalist union of the Father and the Son into what Fabio Leite has here called the Person of the Fatherson.  Instead of two distinct Persons, the Father and the Son, we see almost one Person who has revealed Himself merely as two different modes of the same Divine Person.  But do I need to explain the theological lunacies that can come of this?  Did the Father become incarnate?  Did the Father suffer and die on the Cross?  No, He did neither, and to proclaim yes to either of these questions is to proclaim heresy.  I know that no Catholic worth his/her salt will ever proclaim such preposterous falsehoods, but this is where the logic of the Florentine definition of filioque ultimately leads us.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 25, 2010, 11:59:44 PM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.
How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"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."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.
Okay, fair enough, but how is that controversial? Christ Himself said that He and the Father are one, correct? Considering that Christ said this, it doesn't seem that far of a stretch to think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Jesus even breathed on the Apostles and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" in the Gospels. Would He be able to do this if the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone? Would He not, rather, have to pray to the Father and ask Him to send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 26, 2010, 12:16:51 AM
I can tell you that the western Catholic Church never taught that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and Son as a diarchy.  The filioque was never taught in that way.  In fact the Church explicitly teaches the monarchy of the Father.  So the spiration understood in the phrase "filioque" is true for us ONLY with respect to the order of the Persons in the Trinity and NOT as an indicator of a dyadic generative principle.
In the light of the above comments that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father and the Son as though from a diarchy, how then do you explain the idea you put forward a few posts ago that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle?

At any rate the spiration of the Spirit from the Son is not meant in a substantially causal manner but as from one principle, and Scripture and Tradition tell us that the Father and the Son are indeed one principle.

How are the Father and the Son one principle?

The "one principle" refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which is not shared by the Holy Spirit.

However, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son in that nexus of relationships.

The relationships are NOT the Persons themselves but refer to the relationships of Begetting, Begotten, and Processing.

The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' proceeding eternally, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.

Mary

Revision: The Processing that originates in the Begetter, reaches fruition throughout the fullness of eternity and also in time by the action of the Begotten through all eternity and in time...and the unique relationship between the Father and the Son is what is referenced 'as from one principle' with the Spirit proceeding eternally from that principle of Begetter/Begotten, in accord with both Scripture and Tradition.
What Scriptures say this?  Where in Tradition do we see your line of thinking?  You keep citing Scripture and Tradition as though this gives authority to your arguments, but without any specific references to passages of Scripture or teachings of specific named Fathers, Councils, hymns, icons, etc., your repeated citation of "Scripture and Tradition" rings hollow.

Dear PtA,

As I mull over how to proceed with this I am thinking of things that we could clear up in advance.

Do you?....Does Orthodoxy accept that the Spirit proceeds in time from both the Father and the Son?...or would I have to prove that in some way?
Proceeds in time?  I don't know that I've ever heard that theology expressed before, so I really don't know.  The Holy Spirit proceeds ontologically from the Father from all eternity, but when the fullness of time had come, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as one sent on a mission and descended upon the Apostles and all the Church.  This is what I understand to be the Orthodox teaching on the different processions of the Holy Spirit.
How is that different than the Catholic teaching?

Because the Catholic teaching, as expressed in the official teaching documents of the RCC (as opposed to random internet theologians on forums), says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the son not only in time but eternally:

"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."

This is from the Council of Florence, and is also quoted in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain the Filioque.
Okay, fair enough, but how is that controversial? Christ Himself said that He and the Father are one, correct?
But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

Considering that Christ said this, it doesn't seem that far of a stretch to think that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. Jesus even breathed on the Apostles and said "Receive ye the Holy Ghost" in the Gospels. Would He be able to do this if the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone? Would He not, rather, have to pray to the Father and ask Him to send the Holy Spirit to the Apostles?
You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: John Larocque on July 26, 2010, 01:45:08 AM
Almost by accident I found this link. I was looking for a phrase from one Latin hymn (Tantum Ergo) but found this one instead...

http://web.me.com/thomaswindsor/Society_of_St._Bede/Qui_procedis.html

Another Internet search against the phrase "qui procedis ab utroque" (which proceeds from each of them) led to an implicit version of the same, the Athanasian Creed, which has origins in Gaul:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xvi.html

Quote
Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus; nec creatus; nec genitus (est); sed procedens.


One priest explained to me that with the Filioque, it's a lop-sided pyramid, with the Holy Ghost on the bottom, and the Father and the Son (equally) at the top.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on July 26, 2010, 07:36:03 AM

One priest explained to me that with the Filioque, it's a lop-sided pyramid, with the Holy Ghost on the bottom, and the Father and the Son (equally) at the top.
A Roman Catholic priest said this?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Dave in McKinney on July 26, 2010, 08:16:50 AM
Was flipping through K. Ware's book last night and he explained the Catholic postion as:
 position as:
Father is the monarch; the Spirit proceeds from Him; as gift he let's the Spirit proceed from the Son
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: John Larocque on July 26, 2010, 10:22:48 AM

One priest explained to me that with the Filioque, it's a lop-sided pyramid, with the Holy Ghost on the bottom, and the Father and the Son (equally) at the top.
A Roman Catholic priest said this?

No! The local Antiochian one...
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 26, 2010, 11:37:00 AM
But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?
I was going by Christ's words. I wasn't trying to assume anything. Just reading the text.

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)
If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too? Are the Father and Holy Spirit present in the Holy Eucharist along with the Son? Was Pentecost an outpouring of the Father and Son as well as the Holy Spirit?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 26, 2010, 11:46:46 AM
To sum it up

The filioque can mean two things:

1) That the Son sends the Spirit into the world, just like the Spirit sent the Son;

2) That the Father and Son are not different in anything except being Father and Son and therefore the Spirit proceeds from both at the same time eternally.

Meaning (2) is the one implied by the 'filioque' in the context of the Creed text. Because Orthodox Catholic tradition holds (1) to be true and that (2) is false, and because the 'filioque' in the Creed can only mean (2), then the Church, along with Pope Leo III and his predecessors, refuse the insertion of the filioque in the Creed imposed by Charlesmagne as both blasphemous and illegitimate.

It is illegitimate because no king, emperor or local synod can impose dogma on the Church or alter the Symbol of Faith, specially in disregard of both the synods and the primate. In analogy to secular government, it's like a state, governor or the president changing the constitution without consultation to the congress.

It is blasphemous because:

a) it disregards and alters the direct words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Quote
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, {even} the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. St. John 16:26
; Our Lord is the very author of the distinction of "proceeding of the Father" which must not include "and from the Son" and the sending of the Spirit by the Son to the word. If these things could be expressed with "filioque", the Son Himself would not have made the distinction in the sentence above;

b) Despite traditional Catholic theology that there are only two attributes in God, those that pertain to the Godhead and those that are exclusive of each person alone, it creates a third category of a trait that is shared by two and not by one;

c) With the creation of this third category, it reduced the distinction of the Father and the Son to mere words with no de facto difference than the use of different words. If it were true that there is no distinction between the Father and the Son except that one is the Father and the other is the Son, then Patripassianists would be right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism)).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 26, 2010, 12:13:05 PM

But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)

Never does one of the Persons act alone? 

That is the heartbeat of modalism.  One need not deny the Trinity formally in order to deny it de facto.

Can you provide corroboration for this statement and also some corroboration that the Son and Father do NOT have a relationship that is unique to themselves as Persons?

I think if you pursued this particular line of thought with an Orthodox theologian-scholar, you'd find my assessment is not too far off beam.

I expect we won't be able to settle it here...

But I am not going to accept you own assessment against our explanations of filioque unless you can provide firm and universal textual proof that:

1. Never do the Persons act alone

2. The Father does not act in the economy of time without the Son

3. That there is no unique relationship between the Father and the Son, as Persons.

Mary
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: LBK on July 26, 2010, 12:42:59 PM
If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too?


Patripassianism is a heresy last time I checked. God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are "spirit" beings, and were never incarnate, therefore cannot die. The Son, being man as well as God, allowed Himself, in willing obedience to His Father, to suffer and die. The actions and interactions of the Persons of the Holy Trinity need not be simultaneous. At the point of death, He asks His Father to accept His spirit.

Quote
Are the Father and Holy Spirit present in the Holy Eucharist along with the Son?


The Orthodox priestly prayers at the consecration of the Eucharist petition the Lord to "send down His Holy Spirit", with imagery in this prayer derived from the events of Pentecost, and from Psalm 50 (LXX numbering): O Lord, who at the third hour sent down Your most-holy Spirit upon Your Apostles, do not take Him from us, O Good One, but renew Him in us who pray to You. The next prayer clearly refers to the Father: And that which is in this Cup [be]the precious blood of Your Christ.
The third invocation: Changing them [the bread and wine] by Your Holy Spirit. Amen, amen, amen.

Quote
Was Pentecost an outpouring of the Father and Son as well as the Holy Spirit?

From the Vigil for Pentecost:

Come, O peoples, let us worship the Godhead in three persons, the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit; for the Father timelessly begat the Son, co-eternal and co-reigning, and the Holy Spirit was in the Father, glorified with the Son; one power, one essence, one Godhead, whom we all worship as we say: Holy God, who created all things through the Son, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. Holy Mighty, through whom we have come to know the Father, and through whom the Holy Spirit came into the world. Holy Immortal, the Advocate Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. Holy Trinity, glory to You.


Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 26, 2010, 01:00:09 PM
If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too?
Patripassianism is a heresy last time I checked. God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are "spirit" beings, and were never incarnate, therefore cannot die. The Son, being man as well as God, allowed Himself, in willing obedience to His Father, to suffer and die. The actions and interactions of the Persons of the Holy Trinity need not be simultaneous. At the point of death, He asks His Father to accept His spirit.
Exactly, which is why I cannot agree with PeterTheAleut's assertion that the Holy Trinity does everything together. The Father and Holy Spirit did not die on the cross, which would had to have happened if all Three Persons of the Trinity truly act together in everything.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: LBK on July 26, 2010, 01:10:13 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on July 26, 2010, 01:18:07 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.
Let's take a look at Peter's quote. The part I am particularly interested in is the part I put in bold: "NEVER does one of the Persons act alone." This is false because the Son alone died on the cross, the Father and the Holy Spirit did not die, only the Son did. So the assertion that all Three Persons do everything is false. Please explain to me how I am misunderstanding this because his words seem quite clear.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 26, 2010, 04:07:12 PM
But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?
I was going by Christ's words. I wasn't trying to assume anything. Just reading the text.
But even your church isn't a sola scriptura church. ;)  Even you are taught to read the Scriptures within the context of Holy Tradition (whatever Tradition means to you).

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)
If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them?
You do realize the difference between action and actor?  Take, for instance, a soccer team.  Does the fact that eleven players each executes his own unique role to help his team win the game make them all essentially and ontologically one person?  Of course not!  They're still eleven distinct persons, each working in cooperation with his teammates as they unite to play as one team.

Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too? Are the Father and Holy Spirit present in the Holy Eucharist along with the Son? Was Pentecost an outpouring of the Father and Son as well as the Holy Spirit?
Just to say that God does EVERYTHING as Trinity doesn't mean that all three Persons engage in the same act in exactly the same way.  For instance, the manifestation of the Holy Trinity at the baptism of Christ in the Jordan:  The Son was baptized, the Father spoke, and the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove.  In this way did all three Persons of the Holy Trinity participate in the baptism of Christ--the Father and the Holy Spirit weren't baptized themselves, but they participated in the baptism of the Son.  Likewise do we think of the Crucifixion.  Only the Son was crucified, but the Father caused the sky to turn black and the Holy Spirit gave the Son the strength to endure the agony.  In everything God does, each of the three Divine Persons acts in His own way, but all three participate actively in perfect cooperation.

Regarding the Holy Eucharist, I'll make a side point from the prayers of epiclesis in the Divine Liturgy:  The Divine Liturgy is performed fundamentally to bring glory to the Father, the Son is present in His Body and Blood, which is made Body and Blood of Christ by the action of the Holy Spirit.  Again, all three Persons participate in the Eucharist, even if the Body and Blood are merely that of the Son Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 26, 2010, 04:10:06 PM

But don't separate this from the Creed's statement that the Spirit and the Father are one, that the Spirit and the Son are one.  Why do you assume automatically that this statement from the Gospel implies that the Father and the Son are one in a way that excludes the Holy Spirit?

You think that procession equals possession?  Or that the Son and the Spirit would have no communication with each other if they both drew their existence solely from the Father?  Derived from our understanding of the perfect communion of love between the Divine Persons of the Trinity is our belief that God does NOTHING without the full participation and cooperation of all three Divine Persons.  EVERYTHING God does He does as a Trinity; NEVER does one of the Persons act alone, and NEVER do two of the three Persons collude to work together in separation from the third.  EVERYTHING God does He does as three Divine Persons working together in perfect cooperation.  I think we can say quite safely, then, that the Son's and the Spirit's cooperation with each other for our salvation is not at all hindered by the nature of their essential derivation from the Father.  (Assuming you have a sister:  Would you need to send message through your father that you want your sister to do something with you?  Could you not just communicate directly with your sister?  Not to imply that the Son and the Holy Spirit are siblings, but I think the analogy somewhat appropriate.)

Never does one of the Persons act alone? 

That is the heartbeat of modalism.  One need not deny the Trinity formally in order to deny it de facto.

Can you provide corroboration for this statement and also some corroboration that the Son and Father do NOT have a relationship that is unique to themselves as Persons?

I think if you pursued this particular line of thought with an Orthodox theologian-scholar, you'd find my assessment is not too far off beam.

I expect we won't be able to settle it here...

But I am not going to accept you own assessment against our explanations of filioque unless you can provide firm and universal textual proof that:

1. Never do the Persons act alone

2. The Father does not act in the economy of time without the Son

3. That there is no unique relationship between the Father and the Son, as Persons.

Mary
Why should I give you the information you want from me?  You never give us the same when we ask it of you.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 26, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
If the Three Divine Persons always do everything together, then why make a distinction between them? Also, I am highly doubtful that God does EVERYTHING as a Trinity. Did the Father and Holy Spirit die on the Cross on Calvary too?


Patripassianism is a heresy last time I checked. God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are "spirit" beings, and were never incarnate, therefore cannot die. The Son, being man as well as God, allowed Himself, in willing obedience to His Father, to suffer and die. The actions and interactions of the Persons of the Holy Trinity need not be simultaneous. At the point of death, He asks His Father to accept His spirit.


Did the Divine Person die?  Or did the body of the Incarnate die? 

PtA was talking about the Divine Persons never acting alone.

Also your other quotes do not constitute what PtA was saying and so are not at all sufficient corroboration.

I want some kind of formal Orthodox corroboration of PtA's assertions. 

If it takes time, that's fine.  I am still putting things together myself.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 26, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 26, 2010, 04:19:22 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 26, 2010, 04:59:14 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.

M.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 26, 2010, 05:01:04 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.
It's not even an act.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fabio Leite on July 26, 2010, 05:43:20 PM
And yet another thing. The Son has two natures. He is both God and Human.

If the Spirit proceeded from the Son, would the whole Son - God-Man - make the procession, or just part of Him? And if it's only the Divine nature that participates in that, how is it possible that just half a person is the subject of anything?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 26, 2010, 06:25:02 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.
It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.

Personhood in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is part of the Divine Nature which is also the locus of the Divine Will.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 27, 2010, 02:05:30 AM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.
It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.
Sorry to confuse you.  When I spoke of the Son being begotten of the fundamental essence of the Father, I intended that to be understood as a statement that the Son is begotten of the Father as an outflowing of the Father's personal essence as Father, NOT as an outflowing of the Essence the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  My ultimate goal, though, was to counter what I read as an insinuation that the Son is begotten of the Father as an act of the Father's will.  It is not the will of the Father to beget the Son; rather, it is of the very nature of the Father to beget the Son.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 27, 2010, 11:10:39 AM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.
It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.
Sorry to confuse you.  When I spoke of the Son being begotten of the fundamental essence of the Father, I intended that to be understood as a statement that the Son is begotten of the Father as an outflowing of the Father's personal essence as Father, NOT as an outflowing of the Essence the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  My ultimate goal, though, was to counter what I read as an insinuation that the Son is begotten of the Father as an act of the Father's will.  It is not the will of the Father to beget the Son; rather, it is of the very nature of the Father to beget the Son.

We are still on the same page then.  I got sloppy, and I am trying to stay as far away from formal language as possible so it is easy to lapse once we step outside the formulas. 

Same thing happens if we try to speak of Personal essences.  It is all the same essence but the nature changes from person to person.  As you have also said, it is in the natural estate of the Father to Beget the Son, who then is distinguished by the natural estate of being Begotten.

I think that creates a great deal of confusion on occasion.  Not here perhaps but it is worth noting, in general, I think.

But then, everything that does not serve to distinguish the Father properly belongs to the Son including the power to Create from nothing.   Scripture does indeed isolate this relationship between the Father and the Son in an especial relationship.   The Holy Spirit in his natural estate of being processed and spirated has a role of course, but that does not negate the particular relationship of Father and Son in the history of Creation, in the history of Salvation.

Rublev's icon of the Trinity serves this all quite beautifully.  And it is in this icon, I believe that one sees most clearly, visually that the Father and the Son have a unique relationship.   I was always struck by the perfect humility portrayed by the figure of the Holy Spirit with head and eyes cast down and figure gently resting.   There is something solid and steady in the figure of the Father.   But the Son is full of movement with eyes cast directly upon the Father and the figure almost leaning into the Father in a great outpouring of loving and self-giving. 

The eye is drawn from the center to the left and one almost has to force the eye to move and to rest upon the figure of the Holy Spirit.  The dynamism of the icon is in the Father and the Son with the figure of the Spirit resting between them.   Powerful.

Mary




Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 27, 2010, 12:38:59 PM
Wyatt, acting together need not mean acting simultaneously. Cooperative behavior, even among mere mortals like ourselves, may be simultaneous (everyone in the group does the same thing at the same time), or in sequence (one person does something, which then allows another person to do something, and so on). The examples I provide are of the latter type of cooperation.

Please read my post again, it's not good form to quote someone out of context.  ;)

Aside from the fact that cooperating together is not at all the same thing as never acting alone...

Could you please explain what "cooperating" together means in terms of the Trinity?

Did the Holy Spirit "cooperate" with the Father in Begetting the Son...mindful that the Son was eternally begotten before all ages?

Does this mean that the Father needed the Spirit's help?  Is the Spirit then some sort of secondary source for the Son?

Or did the Father simply need the approval of the Spirit to Beget the Son?

Or did the Father use the Spirit to Beget the Son making the Spirit an integral part of the anima of the Son?

What are you talking about here...precisely?

M.
Is the Father's begetting of the Son an action of the will or an outflowing of His fundamental Essence?  When I speak of cooperation in the Holy Trinity, I speak solely of actions of the will.

The difficulty with this is that the Father Begets the Son as a Person...not as some divine fundament...The Son is Begotten of the Father...The Second Person is Begotten of the First Person, if you will.  It is a personal act, not a super essential act.
It's not even an act.

True.  It is a part of the nature of the Person and that is why the divine will is always associated directly to the divine nature of the Trinity.

So even at that you're still in some difficulty with your explanation of Begetting, Begotten and Processing as an outflowing of the Divine Essence, because the Persons subsist in the Divine Essence.
Sorry to confuse you.  When I spoke of the Son being begotten of the fundamental essence of the Father, I intended that to be understood as a statement that the Son is begotten of the Father as an outflowing of the Father's personal essence as Father, NOT as an outflowing of the Essence the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  My ultimate goal, though, was to counter what I read as an insinuation that the Son is begotten of the Father as an act of the Father's will.  It is not the will of the Father to beget the Son; rather, it is of the very nature of the Father to beget the Son.

We are still on the same page then.  I got sloppy, and I am trying to stay as far away from formal language as possible so it is easy to lapse once we step outside the formulas. 

Same thing happens if we try to speak of Personal essences.  It is all the same essence but the nature changes from person to person.  As you have also said, it is in the natural estate of the Father to Beget the Son, who then is distinguished by the natural estate of being Begotten.

I think that creates a great deal of confusion on occasion.  Not here perhaps but it is worth noting, in general, I think.

But then, everything that does not serve to distinguish the Father properly belongs to the Son including the power to Create from nothing.   Scripture does indeed isolate this relationship between the Father and the Son in an especial relationship.   The Holy Spirit in his natural estate of being processed and spirated has a role of course, but that does not negate the particular relationship of Father and Son in the history of Creation, in the history of Salvation.

Rublev's icon of the Trinity serves this all quite beautifully.  And it is in this icon, I believe that one sees most clearly, visually that the Father and the Son have a unique relationship.   I was always struck by the perfect humility portrayed by the figure of the Holy Spirit with head and eyes cast down and figure gently resting.   There is something solid and steady in the figure of the Father.   But the Son is full of movement with eyes cast directly upon the Father and the figure almost leaning into the Father in a great outpouring of loving and self-giving. 

The eye is drawn from the center to the left and one almost has to force the eye to move and to rest upon the figure of the Holy Spirit.  The dynamism of the icon is in the Father and the Son with the figure of the Spirit resting between them.   Powerful.

Mary


I am going to jump ahead a bit because it is on my mind and I don't want to loose it...the thought, not my mind....the mind went years ago!!

I think in simplest terms one might say that the Spirit must process from the Son eternally for much the same reason that the Son must be eternally Begotten from the Father, rather than simply Begotten in time from the time of the Annunciation. 

And so then the Spirit is eternally Processed or Spirated by the Father and the Son, and also in time by the Father and the Son.  These are characteristics of the estates of the divine Nature, not the Essence, and actually protect against confusion about the full Personhood of the Holy Spirit.

If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.

There was one other thing but my real life intervened and its been hours since I started this note and I cannot remember the last comment.  It will come back to me eventually.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 27, 2010, 02:26:32 PM
If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on July 27, 2010, 08:55:21 PM
If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?

Why do you ask?

Are you stating that the truth of revelation can only be told in Greek?

That would include liturgy, I presume.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: android on August 02, 2010, 04:39:24 PM
At the most basic level, Filioque is indefensible because, according to the Synods, nothing can be added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

That said, since the 12th century, Latin theology has tried to justify its insertion for reasons other than were used when it was erroneously inserted in the first place in 6th century Spain. To give it up would be to admit they were wrong.

Yahtzee.

And the bits (from Papist, I believe) about the EO not "accepting the Latin Fathers" and "other" counsels (read- their (RC) counsels which were not ecumenical) are beyond disengenuous.  Yes, we ask that you accept common points of intersection back to a point where there was unity, in the name of unity, and you merely ask that EO do, in effect, the opposite.

And the christological reasons are very clear in light of the distinction between nature and persons, which filioque conflates.  The Creed was originally crafted as it was for a reason. At least as a matter of resolving theological impasse (I think it's safe to say we are there, after a millenium), that seems reasonable (w/o the potential for error).

At a minimum, it seems like it is more problematic for a RC to allege the original Creed as "erroneous", even if it is somehow "incomplete" and some concept of filioque could be fleshed out by reexamining the Fathers-- in effect, acknowledge that the Creed (w/o filioque) is correct, and that any concepts hinted at by filioque can be up for discussion, but w/o altering the Creed or asserting that the word/phrase "filioque" somehow adequately explains such a complcated concept that relies on such precise distinctions.

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on August 02, 2010, 11:25:25 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on August 03, 2010, 01:00:24 AM
If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?

Why do you ask?

Are you stating that the truth of revelation can only be told in Greek?
No, I'm not suggesting that the truth can only be told in Greek.  What I am suggesting is this:  The Cappadocian Fathers who gave us the foundation for the triadology we express in the Creed defined the concept of procession in Greek.  The Latin fathers who developed your understanding of the Trinity are certainly free to take the faith of the Ss. Basil, Gregory, and Gregory, the faith of the Creed, and translate it to Latin.  However, such translation needs to be consistent with the definitions of key concepts as they were articulated in their original Greek language.  Specifically, the translators are not permitted to redefine terms to fit their own deviant theology.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on August 03, 2010, 11:07:07 AM
If one remembers, and one must remember, that the term process in Latin is not generative but descriptive of a directed movement.  There are other ways the Latins have of indicating the authorship of the Father with respect to the Holy Spirit.  And they do that in addition to speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Did St. Basil the Great speak Latin?  Did his brother Gregory?

Why do you ask?

Are you stating that the truth of revelation can only be told in Greek?
No, I'm not suggesting that the truth can only be told in Greek.  What I am suggesting is this:  The Cappadocian Fathers who gave us the foundation for the triadology we express in the Creed defined the concept of procession in Greek.  The Latin fathers who developed your understanding of the Trinity are certainly free to take the faith of the Ss. Basil, Gregory, and Gregory, the faith of the Creed, and translate it to Latin.  However, such translation needs to be consistent with the definitions of key concepts as they were articulated in their original Greek language.  Specifically, the translators are not permitted to redefine terms to fit their own deviant theology.

Sure am glad nobody took that position on Trinity and Incarnation!!

Surely the Latins did not think the teaching of filioque was deviant.  Certainly they understood the Greek teaching and knew it was embedded in filioque along with the secondary understanding.  Is it a fault when the Greek word could only express one meaning but the same word in Latin could be understood in two ways, each one appropriate to the Person in question?

Very few Orthodox theologian-scholars today deny that the fathers denied filioque when it was understood in its proper formal meaning.

Are you going to tell me that nothing was ever added to or dropped from the N-C Creed ever?

I hope you are not going to tell me that.

M.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: vasily on April 02, 2011, 09:33:55 AM
 Glory to Jesus Christ,

 The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and  is sent into the world by the Son.(John 15,26) Two functions: the procession and the mission. Each person of the Holy Trinity has His own characteristics. The Father is "unbegotten".  Christ is "begotten". He is born eternally from the Father. The Holy Spirit "proceeds" eternally from the Father. The verb "proceeds" is in the present tense and expresses the eternal continuous procession of the Holy Spirit. This procession is something which happens within and for the Holy Trinity.

 The verb "shall send" is in the future. It expresses something that will happen in the future. The mission is something which happens within the Holy Trinity, it does not happen for the Holy Trinity but for the world.

 In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son. The procession happens outside of time, the mission happened within time.

 The ancient Orthodox teaching of the personal attributes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was distorted in the Latin Church by the creation of a teaching of the procession, outside of time and from all eternity. The filioque is confuses the "procession" with the "mission" or is closing its eyes to the difference. By introducing this new dogma the Roman Church violated the decree of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which forbade the introduction of any kind of  change into the Nicaean Symbol of Faith.. They have performed a serious canonical violation.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Master on April 02, 2011, 09:49:55 AM
ughh this annoys me. it is obvious from scripture... the holy spirit proceeds fromt he father BUT may be sent by either the father or the son as it is evident in john 15:26.

the Orthodox are always right -.-
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 02, 2011, 11:31:06 AM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 02, 2011, 12:25:24 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."
Yeah, although schismatics can't hold Ecumenical Councils so I am not sure what your point is now. Oh, and I see you still have not put "Catholic" under faith on your profile. If you belong to the "Catholic Church" then that makes you "Catholic" so what's the hold up? Why won't you refer to yourself as "Catholic."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 02, 2011, 01:39:09 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did not gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."
Yeah, although schismatics can't hold Ecumenical Councils so I am not sure what your point is now.
Hasn't stopped you supreme pontiff from gathering schismtics into a council and calling it "ecumenical," nor from using said "councils" to set his seal upon the heretical ravings of a local council off on the periphery of Christendom.


Oh, and I see you still have not put "Catholic" under faith on your profile. If you belong to the "Catholic Church" then that makes you "Catholic" so what's the hold up? Why won't you refer to yourself as "Catholic."
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 01:43:34 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
Not to heretical authority.  The Fathers did gather in Ecumenical Council and play "Let's make a deal."
Yeah, although schismatics can't hold Ecumenical Councils so I am not sure what your point is now. Oh, and I see you still have not put "Catholic" under faith on your profile. If you belong to the "Catholic Church" then that makes you "Catholic" so what's the hold up? Why won't you refer to yourself as "Catholic."

Because sauce for the goose, appears not to be sauce for the gander...
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 02, 2011, 03:32:02 PM
ughh this annoys me. it is obvious from scripture... the holy spirit proceeds fromt he father BUT may be sent by either the father or the son as it is evident in john 15:26.the Orthodox are always right -.-

The NIV translation is interesting on this: 
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."
But regardless of the translation, the first part of the text affirms the Orthodox position even more than the second, that even when Christ sends the Spirit, the Spirit is still "from the Father."  There is no ambiguity here. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 02, 2011, 03:39:41 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 05:19:14 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 02, 2011, 05:35:55 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father." 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 05:53:01 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 02, 2011, 06:01:45 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.
Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.
Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father." 
Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."  I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  M. 
I understand.  No one has a problem with mission from Father and Son.   In eternal procession, "as from one principle" would be a problem because either the Father is the principle (arche) in the Godhead or He is not.  Likewise, if it refers to the essence shared by the Father and Son, the Spirit shares the same essence, and does not proceed from Himself, nor can the Spirit be separated from any function of the essence.  Whether "and the Son" is heretical of itself as a statement in the Latin, as the Latin as stated allows for a "mission" interpretation, is certain a valid conversation.  But the problem is there is still an argument for its referring to eternal procession. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 06:10:24 PM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 06:47:24 PM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 07:33:42 PM
I understand.  No one has a problem with mission from Father and Son.   In eternal procession, "as from one principle" would be a problem because either the Father is the principle (arche) in the Godhead or He is not.  Likewise, if it refers to the essence shared by the Father and Son, the Spirit shares the same essence, and does not proceed from Himself, nor can the Spirit be separated from any function of the essence.  Whether "and the Son" is heretical of itself as a statement in the Latin, as the Latin as stated allows for a "mission" interpretation, is certain a valid conversation.  But the problem is there is still an argument for its referring to eternal procession.  

Dear Father,

Here are a few of the notes from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity's Clarification of the Filioque.  I only have the document itself in RTF that I could send to you if you'd like, but I think the following notes are instructive even out of context. I thought that the last item from St. Gregory Nyssa was particularly helpful:
Quote
3 Tertullian uses the verb procedere in a sense common to the Word and the Spirit insofar as they receive divinity from the Father: "The Word was not uttered out of something empty and vain, and he does not lack substance, he who proceeded (processit) from such a (divine) substance and has made so many (created) substances." (Adv. Praxean, VII, 6).
St Augustine, following St Ambrose, takes up this more common conception of procession: "All that proceeds is not born, although what is born proceeds" (Contra Maximinum, II, 14, 1, PL 42, 770).
Much later St Thomas Aquinas remarks that "the divine nature is communicated in every processing that is not ad extra" (Summa Theologica Ia, q.27, a.3, 2um). For him, as for all this Latin theology which used the term "procession" for the Son as well as for the Spirit, "generation is a procession which puts the divine person in possession of the divine nature" (ibid., Ia. q.43, a 2, c), for "from all eternity the Son proceeds in order to be God" (ibid.). In the same way, he affirms that "through his procession, the Holy Spirit receives the nature of the Father, as does the Son" (ibid., Ia, q.35, a.2, c). "Of words referring to any kind of origin, the most general is procession. We use it to indicate any origin whatever; we say, for instance, that the line proceeds from the point; that the ray proceeds from the sun, the river from its source, and likewise in all kinds of other cases. Since we admit one or another of these words that evoke origin, we can, therefore, conclude that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" (ibid., Ia, q.36, a.2, c).
 
4  St Cyril bears witness here to a Trinitarian doctrine common to the whole school of Alexandria since St Athanasius, who had written "Just as the Son says: 'All that the Father has is mine' (Jn 16:15), so shall we find that, through the Son, it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B). St Epiphanius of Saramis (Ancoratus, VIII, PG 43, 29 C) and Didymus the Blind (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, CLIII, PG 34, 1064 A) link the Father and the Son by the same preposition ek in the communication to the Holy Spirit of the consubstantial divinity.

5 "The two relationships of the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to the Father oblige us to place two relationships in the Father, one referring to the Son and the other to the Holy Spirit" (St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia, q.32, a.2, c).

6 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.248.

7 St Gregory of Nazianzus says that "the Spirit is a middle term (meson) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten" (Discourse 31, 8, Sources Chrétiennes, no.250, p.290). Cf also, in a Thomistic perspective, G Leblond, "Point of view on the procession of the Holy Spirit," in Revue Thomiste, LXXXVI, t.78, 1978, pp.293-302.

8 St Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou)," (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A).

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 02, 2011, 08:04:05 PM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

I have something archived from Apotheoun which points to the error of the procession from the Trinity As Principle.


"Texts which speak of the Son having "all things" in common with the Father, or which speak of the Spirit as having "all things" in common with the Father and the Son, concerns the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis, and not their manner of origin (tropos hyparxeos).  To deny this distinction is to fall into the heresy of Sabellius, who confused the distinct hypostatic properties of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with their common essence.  The Son and Spirit receive their hypostatic existence from the Father alone, because He is the sole cause, principle, source, and font of divinity; and so, by generating the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit, He (the Father) imparts His own essential nature to them.

"In order to understand these triadological distinctions better, and to see why the East rejects the filioque as defined by Florence and Lyons II as heretical, I recommend reading the recently published dissertation of A. Edward Siecienski, which is entitled, "The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-439)."

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 02, 2011, 08:35:15 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 02, 2011, 08:50:54 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority?  
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church are in schism with it, as opposed to being in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith, the ones who confess it as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council set their seal upon it, not the "new and approved" version of Toledo.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 02, 2011, 08:51:19 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 02, 2011, 08:52:15 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FormerReformer on April 02, 2011, 08:56:00 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on April 02, 2011, 09:00:48 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Actually your point makes no sense. To say that my parish, the church I go to is Catholic is to say it contains the fullness of faith and worship from time immemorial. When I enter the doors of the parish I go to, I am in the Catholic Church.

How can I be Catholic? How am I universal? How do I contain the fullness faith, worship, and tradition?

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on April 02, 2011, 09:03:36 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 

The petty and insular fallout of the problem created by the RCC over a millenium ago.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FormerReformer on April 02, 2011, 09:05:40 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 

The petty and insular fallout of the problem created by the RCC over a millenium ago.

It's the petty and insular fallout of a thread that was closed for just this reason.

Or to quote some of my ancestors/relatives from Jersey: "Nice thread you got here.  Be a shame if anything happened to it."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 02, 2011, 09:19:02 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Back in the ancient four sees in the East, I'm not "kaathuuliikii," but neither is the One, Holy, Catholic (jaami'iyyah) and Apostolic Church, I'm "jaami'i" (altougth we usually say Ruumiii "Roman").  In the fifth see, recently rectored with an Orhtodox bishop, its bishop is not "catolic" but in his native Romanian he is sorbornicesc, like his One, Holy, Catholic (sobornicească) and Apostollic Church.  The Rpmanians in submission to the Vatican are "catolici," but eveidently not enough for the Vatican: they have been banned from bringing their married clergy to Italy, although there are perhaps around a half million of them there, as oppoed to the "sobornicesti" Catholic Romanians, who are over a million in Italy.

In the next Patriarchate, the main square is called Sobornaya Ploshchad in Russian "Catholic Square."

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:
Quote
I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 09:44:48 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 09:46:27 PM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

I have something archived from Apotheoun which points to the error of the procession from the Trinity As Principle.


"Texts which speak of the Son having "all things" in common with the Father, or which speak of the Spirit as having "all things" in common with the Father and the Son, concerns the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis, and not their manner of origin (tropos hyparxeos).  To deny this distinction is to fall into the heresy of Sabellius, who confused the distinct hypostatic properties of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with their common essence.  The Son and Spirit receive their hypostatic existence from the Father alone, because He is the sole cause, principle, source, and font of divinity; and so, by generating the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit, He (the Father) imparts His own essential nature to them.

Yeah, this makes much more sense.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 09:47:26 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority?  
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church are in schism with it, as opposed to being in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith, the ones who confess it as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council set their seal upon it, not the "new and approved" version of Toledo.

How many times are you two going to play this same game?  ::)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 09:48:04 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?

I'm sure Isa would be willing to identify as Catholic.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 09:49:21 PM
After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

The members of the Church of Christ only calling themselves Catholic is entirely without historical precedent.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 09:50:34 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 

Most likely nothing. They've just been led away to their usual game of claiming Catholicity for their own church back and forth.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 02, 2011, 10:01:39 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

I hope you're sitting down, deusveritasest, because I've got great news for you. [Roman] Catholics aren't required to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Trinity.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 02, 2011, 10:08:37 PM
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. ;)
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Actually your point makes no sense.

I wouldn't say it makes no sense. But I do think it's pretty silly.

Wyatt has challenged ialmisry to described himself as "Catholic", without any qualifiers, in his profile. Since ialmisry hasn't done so, Wyatt is seeing what conclusions he can prove from that.

You see the same sort of thing in all the higher-level dialogues.  ;)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 02, 2011, 10:38:49 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?
I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Do you not read the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils?  Adherents to the Catholic Church are called "Orthodox Christians." 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 10:49:49 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

Yes.  It sounds silly to me too.  It's a good thing that is not what Filioque means.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 10:52:35 PM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 11:06:02 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

I hope you're sitting down, deusveritasest, because I've got great news for you. [Roman] Catholics aren't required to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Trinity.

Huh? That's precisely what Mary indicates here:

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 11:06:34 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

Yes.  It sounds silly to me too.  It's a good thing that is not what Filioque means.

But that is precisely what you indicated when you spoke of the "Trinity-as-principle":

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 11:10:10 PM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 02, 2011, 11:13:57 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Back in the ancient four sees in the East, I'm not "kaathuuliikii," but neither is the One, Holy, Catholic (jaami'iyyah) and Apostolic Church, I'm "jaami'i" (altougth we usually say Ruumiii "Roman").  In the fifth see, recently rectored with an Orhtodox bishop, its bishop is not "catolic" but in his native Romanian he is sorbornicesc, like his One, Holy, Catholic (sobornicească) and Apostollic Church.  The Rpmanians in submission to the Vatican are "catolici," but eveidently not enough for the Vatican: they have been banned from bringing their married clergy to Italy, although there are perhaps around a half million of them there, as oppoed to the "sobornicesti" Catholic Romanians, who are over a million in Italy.

In the next Patriarchate, the main square is called Sobornaya Ploshchad in Russian "Catholic Square."

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:
Quote
I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.
So....you belong to the Catholic Church but are not Catholic? Umm...okay. I am glad I am not Eastern Orthodox. Too confusing.

As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Asteriktos on April 02, 2011, 11:22:05 PM
As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?

They consider themselves Catholic, but it would be confusing to continue calling themselves Catholic in the west (as they once did). Calling yourself something like the "Greek Orthodox Catholic Church of America" or whatever would just be setting yourself up for a lot of frustration. Likewise, they could call themselves "evangelical," because they believe that aspect of Christianity is part of their make-up*, but that would also cause confusion.

*St. Justin Popovich, for example, spoke of "evangelical virtues" and an "evangelistic faith"
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 02, 2011, 11:23:18 PM
bump

I think the substance of this thread is more important than a private scuffle over names...really...

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 02, 2011, 11:36:45 PM
As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?

They consider themselves Catholic, but it would be confusing to continue calling themselves Catholic in the west (as they once did). Calling yourself something like the "Greek Orthodox Catholic Church of America" or whatever would just be setting yourself up for a lot of frustration. Likewise, they could call themselves "evangelical," because they believe that aspect of Christianity is part of their make-up*, but that would also cause confusion.

*St. Justin Popovich, for example, spoke of "evangelical virtues" and an "evangelistic faith"
Yes, but my point is if ialmisry is so adamant about laying claim to the title "the Catholic Church," which is confusing, then he should also have no problem referring to himself as Catholic under the faith segment of his profile. As yet he has not done so. My point is if he is going to claim the title for his Church and say they alone have the rights to that title then he should have no problem calling himself a "Catholic."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 11:44:57 PM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.

Wow. Up to your "you don't understand what our church teaches" business again when people call you on your inconsistency. In this instance, you are the one who offered "Trinity-as-principle" as the excuse for the filioque, in response to my objection that the Father cannot be the principle if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, and thus the only meaning that would be sensible to derive from what you are saying is that you are speaking of the Trinity being the principle of the Holy Spirit's procession.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 02, 2011, 11:58:23 PM
Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Back in the ancient four sees in the East, I'm not "kaathuuliikii," but neither is the One, Holy, Catholic (jaami'iyyah) and Apostolic Church, I'm "jaami'i" (altougth we usually say Ruumiii "Roman").  In the fifth see, recently rectored with an Orhtodox bishop, its bishop is not "catolic" but in his native Romanian he is sorbornicesc, like his One, Holy, Catholic (sobornicească) and Apostollic Church.  The Rpmanians in submission to the Vatican are "catolici," but eveidently not enough for the Vatican: they have been banned from bringing their married clergy to Italy, although there are perhaps around a half million of them there, as oppoed to the "sobornicesti" Catholic Romanians, who are over a million in Italy.

In the next Patriarchate, the main square is called Sobornaya Ploshchad in Russian "Catholic Square."

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:
Quote
I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.
So....you belong to the Catholic Church but are not Catholic? Umm...okay. I am glad I am not Eastern Orthodox. Too confusing.

As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?
This "AM NOT!", "ARE, TOO!" silliness is the reason another thread recently got locked. Why must you two bring it to THIS thread? Can't you just drop it?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 11:17:39 AM
Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.

Wow. Up to your "you don't understand what our church teaches" business again when people call you on your inconsistency. In this instance, you are the one who offered "Trinity-as-principle" as the excuse for the filioque, in response to my objection that the Father cannot be the principle if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, and thus the only meaning that would be sensible to derive from what you are saying is that you are speaking of the Trinity being the principle of the Holy Spirit's procession.

I don't mean to be repetitive but you are missing the point.

The Father certainly can be said to be the principle for the Holy Spirit and that is a true statement as it stands.

The Trinity-as-Principle is not a source.  It is a set of relationships.

We are not dealing with an EITHER/OR situation here.  It can and is a BOTH/AND situation.

The Father is principle always.  

With the addition of Filioque you THEN draw attention to the eternal relationships among the Persons of the Trinity which is ONE...

In order to see a patristic teaching on the "directional" flow of those relationships then go and read the statement from St. Gregory Nyssa that I posted.  That will explain why the Son does not have to proceed from the Spirit...logically.  The logic of the relationships among the Persons of the Trinity do not demand that at all.

It is hardly fair to force an EITHER/OR situation where it never was intended to be that and does not need to be that.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 03, 2011, 12:58:44 PM
In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

I hope you're sitting down, deusveritasest, because I've got great news for you. [Roman] Catholics aren't required to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Trinity.

Huh? That's precisely what Mary indicates here:

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.

Yes, I saw that. What I didn't see was her or anyone else saying that the Trinity-As-Principle idea is something that [Roman] Catholics are required to accept.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 01:04:19 PM
Anyone who recites "Filioque" in the Creed seems by definition bound to believe it, and the explanation for it, given by the Church.  That seems to be axiomatic of a creedal profession of faith.

Also Trinity-as-Principle does not indicate "source" or "archon."   It indicates a set of hypostatic relationships that are not bound by a logic of hierarchy.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 09:52:37 PM
--Is not the name of the Father sufficient to show the priority [Gk. presbeia: seniority] of the Father?...This honor is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son.  (St. John Chrysostom, 4th c.:  Phil. Hom. 7)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 10:02:05 PM
“The Father alone is the source of the super-essential Godhead” (St. Dionysius, Divine Names 2.5).  Hence, we have the Father alone as the source (Gk. pege), the principle (Gk. arche) and the cause (Gk. aitia) within the Trinity.  Likewise, St. Gregory the Theologian teaches that “God the Trinity has one nature, and the union [Gk. enosis] is the Father" (Orat. 20).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Marc1152 on April 03, 2011, 10:13:09 PM
I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
On this Point:

"IF any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him (Rom. viii, 9). These words of the Apostle show that the same Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: for the text alleged follows upon these words immediately preceding: If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now it cannot be said that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit merely of the man Christ (Luke iv, 3): for from Gal. iv, 6, Since ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, it appears that the Holy Ghost makes sons of God inasmuch as He is the Spirit of the Son of God, -- sons of God, that is to say, by adoption, which means assimilation to Him who is Son of God by nature. For so the text has it: He hath predestined (them) to become conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29). But the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Spirit of the Son of God except as taking His origin from Him: for this distinction of origin is the only one admissible in the Godhead."  - St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG)

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

I get what you are saying. Yet, you really have not answered my first question, which was "Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?" As you may surmise, I ask this because the one Creed that the entire Church agreed to does not contain the Filioque. So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.
Yes, it is that important because I believe that it is orthodox, scriptural, and patrisitc. It is true. Just as you do not want to sacrifice truth for unity, neither do we.
Perhaps, I can ask the same question in this way: Is the RCC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the entire Body of Christ, starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all, through the Seven Ecumenical Councils? I realize that any answer to this question will involve a rethinking of the role of the Pope, not only in the Roman Church but in the entire Body.
We have the same understanding of our Church that you have of yours. We would similarly ask, "Is the EOC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the Body of Christ, starting by accepting the Latin Fathers and all the councils, not just the first seven?"



Here is a proper answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73OiRZf7DsM
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 03, 2011, 10:19:24 PM
--Is not the name of the Father sufficient to show the priority [Gk. presbeia: seniority] of the Father?...This honor is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son.  (St. John Chrysostom, 4th c.:  Phil. Hom. 7)

Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that you'll succeed in disproving the filioque simply from the fact that the Father is called "Father". Indeed, that argument seems just as weak as the argument that says that the filioque must be true if the Father and Son are one in essence.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 10:26:20 PM
--Is not the name of the Father sufficient to show the priority [Gk. presbeia: seniority] of the Father?...This honor is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son.  (St. John Chrysostom, 4th c.:  Phil. Hom. 7)

Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that you'll succeed in disproving the filioque simply from the fact that the Father is called "Father". Indeed, that argument seems just as weak as the argument that says that the filioque must be true if the Father and Son are one in essence.

Dear Peter,

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque.  

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 04, 2011, 11:29:05 AM
Dear elijahmaria,

First, I think I should tell you that, even though I sometimes read your posts, I am really not a follower.

Second, I don't know if you genuinely misunderstood or what, but my statement

Indeed, that argument seems just as weak as the argument that says that the filioque must be true if the Father and Son are one in essence.

was a reference to Papist's post

Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 04, 2011, 11:34:46 AM
Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.  Filioque defines relationships not essences:

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque. 

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 04, 2011, 12:01:53 PM
Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Schultz on April 05, 2011, 09:44:42 AM


Wyatt, Ialmsiry, and all other semantic warriors,

I will no longer tolerate threads being derailed by the pointless bickering about the right to use the word "Catholic".  You all know your positions and you all know that neither of you is going to budge on it. 

The next time I see either of you, or anyone else who is familiar with this silly little internet argument, engage in this semantic urination contest, you will be put on a 60 day warning and/or straight to post-moderation if I feel like it.

In short, KNOCK IT OFF!!!

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: akimel on April 05, 2011, 11:10:24 AM
The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

This argument is faulty, as it confuses the immanent and economic Trinities.  The divine processions occur within the eternal life of the Godhead, apart from the world God has made and thus apart from the Incarnation.  So whatever the merits and demerits of the Filioque may be, it does not prevent or inhibit a strong assertion of the Incarnation. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ativan on April 06, 2011, 02:35:03 AM
Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 06, 2011, 10:47:46 AM
Dear Fr. Kimel,

I find these 'categories' of the Trinity, (i.e. 'immanent' versus 'economic' Trinities) objectionable on the surface, since these are not universally accepted concepts.  I have tried to research these terms, and can't find any substantive discussion of them before Rahner, so I assume that even for the RCC these concepts are new.

The 'red flag' here was that the Church of Rome did not bring its insistence on the 'Filioque' before the entire Church when assembled.  Thus, these two concepts and the Filioque are not universally recognized.

Setting that aside for a moment, if what you are saying is true and that the Filioque does not add or subtract from the understanding of the Person of Christ and His Incarnation, then it is entirely meaningless and ought to be dropped straight away as a useless accretion that inhibits Church unity and confuses the people.

I think the less complicated theology is, the less opportunity we have for error and heresy to creep in.



The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

This argument is faulty, as it confuses the immanent and economic Trinities.  The divine processions occur within the eternal life of the Godhead, apart from the world God has made and thus apart from the Incarnation.  So whatever the merits and demerits of the Filioque may be, it does not prevent or inhibit a strong assertion of the Incarnation. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Aindriú on April 06, 2011, 11:53:35 AM
Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Quote
Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

30. Whenever the union of the Greek and Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.

Granting that this is so, the second question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase "and from the Son" to the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople. The difficulty is increased in that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus decreed that no additions should be made to the Nicene Creed: "The holy Council decrees that it is lawful for no one to produce or compose a Faith other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea together with the Holy Spirit." It has been asserted in answer to this question that it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.

On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase "and from the Son." On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase "and from the Son."

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add "and from the Son" to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, "to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins."

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said "and from the Son" in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.

There is nothing at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6, of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase "and from the Son," provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church's power of making this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however, it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith. However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church.

31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.
Quote
The Greeks are bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but they are not bound to proclaim it in the Creed.
Cf. Benedict XIV Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742:
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 06, 2011, 12:01:27 PM
That has to be one of the creepiest things I have read in a long time, and I have a habit of reading creepy stuff.

The implications of this are horrendous.


Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Quote
Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

30. Whenever the union of the Greek and Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.

Granting that this is so, the second question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase "and from the Son" to the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople. The difficulty is increased in that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus decreed that no additions should be made to the Nicene Creed: "The holy Council decrees that it is lawful for no one to produce or compose a Faith other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea together with the Holy Spirit." It has been asserted in answer to this question that it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.

On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase "and from the Son." On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase "and from the Son."

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add "and from the Son" to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, "to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins."

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said "and from the Son" in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.

There is nothing at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6, of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase "and from the Son," provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church's power of making this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however, it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith. However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church.

31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.
Quote
The Greeks are bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but they are not bound to proclaim it in the Creed.
Cf. Benedict XIV Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742:

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: akimel on April 06, 2011, 12:04:55 PM
Dear Fr. Kimel,

I find these 'categories' of the Trinity, (i.e. 'immanent' versus 'economic' Trinities) objectionable on the surface, since these are not universally accepted concepts.  I have tried to research these terms, and can't find any substantive discussion of them before Rahner, so I assume that even for the RCC these concepts are new.

Fr Giryus, the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinities--of if you prefer, between God's inner being and his manifestations and activities in the world, i.e., between  theologia and economia--is implicit in all Trinitarian reflection, both Eastern and Western, from the 4th century on.  As Fr Georges Florovsky observes, it was by making this clear distinction in the fourth century, and thereby liberating the divine processions from all connection to the economy of salvation, that the Church was able to break free from subordinationist Trinitarian theologies. 

This is why the original poster's claim that the Filioque compromises a proper understanding of the Incarnation does not obtain.   As traditionally formulated, the Filioque belongs to theologia, not economia.     

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 06, 2011, 12:46:00 PM
The problem with saying that it is 'implicit' means that it was not directly said despite centuries of debate, which makes the argument less plausible. It is still a modern argument.

Fr. Florovsky's theolegoumenon is not 'authoritative' for the Church, but merely his observation.  He certainly did not argue that his opinion was a definitive teaching of the Church, because he would have to admit there has been no official acceptance of these categories to justify the Filioque and the implications of them as later developed by Rahner, who seems to have been making a new argument for an old decision.  That is problematic in and of itself, since it imputes intentions which did not exist at the time of the decision.

This would make the whole case one of revisionism, which is essentially the original Orthodox protest of the RCC's amendment of its version of the Creed after the Counsel and outside the decision-making process of the Universal Church.


Dear Fr. Kimel,

I find these 'categories' of the Trinity, (i.e. 'immanent' versus 'economic' Trinities) objectionable on the surface, since these are not universally accepted concepts.  I have tried to research these terms, and can't find any substantive discussion of them before Rahner, so I assume that even for the RCC these concepts are new.

Fr Giryus, the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinities--of if you prefer, between God's inner being and his manifestations and activities in the world, i.e., between  theologia and economia--is implicit in all Trinitarian reflection, both Eastern and Western, from the 4th century on.  As Fr Georges Florovsky observes, it was by making this clear distinction in the fourth century, and thereby liberating the divine processions from all connection to the economy of salvation, that the Church was able to break free from subordinationist Trinitarian theologies. 

This is why the original poster's claim that the Filioque compromises a proper understanding of the Incarnation does not obtain.   As traditionally formulated, the Filioque belongs to theologia, not economia.     


Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: akimel on April 06, 2011, 01:08:10 PM
Fr Giryus, we seem to be arguing apples and oranges here.  You are addressing the question "What is authoritative Church dogma?"  I'm talking the distinction between the inner Trinitarian relations and God's self-communication within creation.  No matter what terminology one uses to speak about this distinction (and the terminology will vary from theologian to theologian, tradition to tradition), the distinction is fundamental to all orthodox Trinitarian reflection, whether Eastern or Western.  It is the distinction, if you will, between the eternal begetting of the Son and the temporal conception of the Son in the womb of the Theotokos.  The doctrine of the Holy Trinity doesn't make much sense without this distinction.  Without it, we cannot assert that even if God had never created the world, he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

I'm not arguing for or against the Filioque.  I'm just pointing out that the Filioque claim is a claim about the immanent Trinitarian processions and therefore not to be confused with the economy of salvation. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 06, 2011, 01:30:45 PM
Well, I understand what you are trying to argue, but what I am saying is that you cannot speak of such things and make your argument outside of dogma when such arguments have the natural implication of effecting dogma.  Such distinctions as you have made naturally effect the meaning of dogma, and so dogma must first be addressed and constantly referred to in all further discussion.

Your distinction simply makes no sense at the dogmatic level, since the dogmatic nature of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was established without the categories of which you speak.  They simply made no room for the 'Filioque,' and so to argue against it by the later establishment of categories goes against the dogma of the Church.  The categories themselves are not dogmatic, and thus they cannot be used to alter dogma.  That's my argument.

To put it bluntly, only like effects like, not merely what we like.  Non-dogma cannot change dogma, because they are not like.
 
Again, I do not see this distinction as being present in 'all orthodox Trinitarian reflection,' nowhere more pointedly in its utter absence from being included in any dogmatic formulae of the Church. Again, the caegories are not 'like' the dogmatic formula of the Creed, so they cannot be used as an argument to change dogma.


Fr Giryus, we seem to be arguing apples and oranges here.  You are addressing the question "What is authoritative Church dogma?"  I'm talking the distinction between the inner Trinitarian relations and God's self-communication within creation.  No matter what terminology one uses to speak about this distinction (and the terminology will vary from theologian to theologian, tradition to tradition), the distinction is fundamental to all orthodox Trinitarian reflection, whether Eastern or Western.  It is the distinction, if you will, between the eternal begetting of the Son and the temporal conception of the Son in the womb of the Theotokos.  The doctrine of the Holy Trinity doesn't make much sense without this distinction.  Without it, we cannot assert that even if God had never created the world, he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

I'm not arguing for or against the Filioque.  I'm just pointing out that the Filioque claim is a claim about the immanent Trinitarian processions and therefore not to be confused with the economy of salvation. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: akimel on April 06, 2011, 03:03:25 PM
Your distinction simply makes no sense at the dogmatic level, since the dogmatic nature of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was established without the categories of which you speak.  They simply made no room for the 'Filioque,' and so to argue against it by the later establishment of categories goes against the dogma of the Church.  The categories themselves are not dogmatic, and thus they cannot be used to alter dogma.  That's my argument.

Again, I do not see this distinction as being present in 'all orthodox Trinitarian reflection,' nowhere more pointedly in its utter absence from being included in any dogmatic formulae of the Church. Again, the caegories are not 'like' the dogmatic formula of the Creed, so they cannot be used as an argument to change dogma.

Fr Giryus, I have to believe there is a terrible misunderstanding at work here.  The distinction about which I am speaking--the distinction between the divine processions of the Godhead and the ad extra activities and self-communications of the Godhead--is fundamental to the Church's confession of God as Holy Trinity.  The West didn't invent this distinction nor is it some modern novelty.  It goes back to St Athanasius and the Cappadocians and is vigorously reitererated by contemporary Orthodox theologians.  We confess this distinction every time we sing the Nicene Creed.  When we declare that the Father begets the Son or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are speaking of eternal processions and relations within the Godhead that are completely independent from the world.  That God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and would be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit even if he had never created the world from out of nothing, is ecumenical dogma. 

As I already mentioned, Fr Florovsky speaks of the "ancient and primary distinction between 'theology' and 'economy'" in his essay "Creation and Creaturehood."  In his Lectures on Dogmatic Theology Met John Zizioulas writes: 

Quote
Now we turn to the relationship of the eternal Trinity and the economic Trinity.  The eternal or immanent Trinity, traditionally called the 'theology' proper, refers to how God is in himself.  The economic Trinity, traditionally the 'economy,' refers to how God is for us. The Greek Fathers insisted that the eternal nature of God is altogether beyond our conception and added that we may not participate in the 'substance' of God.  So we can have no 'theology' of God's 'nature.' ... The Greek Fathers' distinction between theology and economy was most clearly expressed by Saint Basil.  In "On the Holy Spirit," Basil defends a doxology of Alexandria origin which he had introduced to the liturgy in his diocese.  The doxology Basil had inherited took the form 'Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit."  Basil's doxology was "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Spirit."  He replaced the through (the Son) and in (the Holy Spirit), with "and the Son with the Spirit."  Basil's reason was that the first, Alexandrian doxology with its use of "through the Son" and "in the Spirit," relates to the economy in which we come to know God through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.  There is an order and even a hierarchy here, because the Spirit follows the Son.  Basil explained that the "Pneumatomachians" ("Resistors of the Spirit"), who refused to accept the divinity of the Spirit, used the doxology with "in" the Spirit.  They thought that "in" denoted space, which seemed to them to indicate that the Spirit was contained by space, which meant that he was a creature. (pp. 69-70, 72-73)

Vladimir Lossky also aggressively asserts the distinction in his book The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.  His entire argument about the apophatic nature of theology flows from it:

Quote
There is no dependence in relation to created being on the part of the Trinity; no determination of what is called 'the eternal procession of the divine persons' by the act of creation of the world.  Even though the created world did not exist, God would still be Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Ghost--for creation is an act of will. ... If we speak of processions, of acts, or of inner determinations, these expressions--involving, as they do, the ideas of time, becoming and intention--only show to what extent our language, indeed our thought, is poor and deficient before the primordial mystery of revelation. (p. 45)

Hence I do not know what you mean, Father, when you say that this distinction between theology and economy makes no sense at the dogmatic level.  The entire doctrine of the Holy Trinity rests upon this distinction and asserts this distinction.  Apart from this distinction we cannot declare that even if God had never created the world he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Without this distinction we cannot distinguish the eternal processions of the Trinity from the temporal missions of the Holy Trinity.  Without this distinction we will inevitably read back into the Godhead the temporality and mutability of creation. 

But I know that you agree with all of this--hence I do not understand our dispute.   And let me once again reiterate, I have not advanced a single argument in this thread in favor of the Filioque.  I am simply seeking to clarify that the Filioque, as a piece of Trinitarian reflection, belongs to theology, not economy; and this is true even if the Filioque is false. 

I think I have said all that can be said on this topic, so I will now withdraw back into lurking mode.       




 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 06, 2011, 03:38:15 PM
Dear Fr. Kimel,

The matter I am addressing is that the theolegoumena which you are discussing cannot be used in the matter of amending dogma, which is why Fr. Georges and Met. Zizioulas can discuss whatever without naturally leading to the alteration of the Tradition which the Filioque is.  These are, by modern standards, 'theories,' while dogma is 'fact.'  If you say that the Filioque is dogma (i.e. fact), then it must be explained by facts rather than theories. 

The fact is that when the Fathers spoke plainly, they avoided the Filioque.  Modern theologians cannot use their theories to explain the motivations of the Fathers when the Fathers did not use such theories.  That's what I'm saying.  You are reading backwards in history, which is a dangerous practice.

The Filioque may be explainable by modern theories because it is a modern invention whne one considers when the Church of Rome adopted it.  I can't find any discussion of these categories before Rahner, and so I am assuming that Rahner is the one who developed them and theologians afterwards (even Fr. Georges and Met. John) are free to use them, though the latter never used them to justify the Filioque.


Your distinction simply makes no sense at the dogmatic level, since the dogmatic nature of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was established without the categories of which you speak.  They simply made no room for the 'Filioque,' and so to argue against it by the later establishment of categories goes against the dogma of the Church.  The categories themselves are not dogmatic, and thus they cannot be used to alter dogma.  That's my argument.

Again, I do not see this distinction as being present in 'all orthodox Trinitarian reflection,' nowhere more pointedly in its utter absence from being included in any dogmatic formulae of the Church. Again, the caegories are not 'like' the dogmatic formula of the Creed, so they cannot be used as an argument to change dogma.

Fr Giryus, I have to believe there is a terrible misunderstanding at work here.  The distinction about which I am speaking--the distinction between the divine processions of the Godhead and the ad extra activities and self-communications of the Godhead--is fundamental to the Church's confession of God as Holy Trinity.  The West didn't invent this distinction nor is it some modern novelty.  It goes back to St Athanasius and the Cappadocians and is vigorously reitererated by contemporary Orthodox theologians.  We confess this distinction every time we sing the Nicene Creed.  When we declare that the Father begets the Son or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are speaking of eternal processions and relations within the Godhead that are completely independent from the world.  That God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and would be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit even if he had never created the world from out of nothing, is ecumenical dogma. 

As I already mentioned, Fr Florovsky speaks of the "ancient and primary distinction between 'theology' and 'economy'" in his essay "Creation and Creaturehood."  In his Lectures on Dogmatic Theology Met John Zizioulas writes: 

Quote
Now we turn to the relationship of the eternal Trinity and the economic Trinity.  The eternal or immanent Trinity, traditionally called the 'theology' proper, refers to how God is in himself.  The economic Trinity, traditionally the 'economy,' refers to how God is for us. The Greek Fathers insisted that the eternal nature of God is altogether beyond our conception and added that we may not participate in the 'substance' of God.  So we can have no 'theology' of God's 'nature.' ... The Greek Fathers' distinction between theology and economy was most clearly expressed by Saint Basil.  In "On the Holy Spirit," Basil defends a doxology of Alexandria origin which he had introduced to the liturgy in his diocese.  The doxology Basil had inherited took the form 'Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit."  Basil's doxology was "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Spirit."  He replaced the through (the Son) and in (the Holy Spirit), with "and the Son with the Spirit."  Basil's reason was that the first, Alexandrian doxology with its use of "through the Son" and "in the Spirit," relates to the economy in which we come to know God through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.  There is an order and even a hierarchy here, because the Spirit follows the Son.  Basil explained that the "Pneumatomachians" ("Resistors of the Spirit"), who refused to accept the divinity of the Spirit, used the doxology with "in" the Spirit.  They thought that "in" denoted space, which seemed to them to indicate that the Spirit was contained by space, which meant that he was a creature. (pp. 69-70, 72-73)

Vladimir Lossky also aggressively asserts the distinction in his book The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.  His entire argument about the apophatic nature of theology flows from it:

Quote
There is no dependence in relation to created being on the part of the Trinity; no determination of what is called 'the eternal procession of the divine persons' by the act of creation of the world.  Even though the created world did not exist, God would still be Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Ghost--for creation is an act of will. ... If we speak of processions, of acts, or of inner determinations, these expressions--involving, as they do, the ideas of time, becoming and intention--only show to what extent our language, indeed our thought, is poor and deficient before the primordial mystery of revelation. (p. 45)

Hence I do not know what you mean, Father, when you say that this distinction between theology and economy makes no sense at the dogmatic level.  The entire doctrine of the Holy Trinity rests upon this distinction and asserts this distinction.  Apart from this distinction we cannot declare that even if God had never created the world he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Without this distinction we cannot distinguish the eternal processions of the Trinity from the temporal missions of the Holy Trinity.  Without this distinction we will inevitably read back into the Godhead the temporality and mutability of creation. 

But I know that you agree with all of this--hence I do not understand our dispute.   And let me once again reiterate, I have not advanced a single argument in this thread in favor of the Filioque.  I am simply seeking to clarify that the Filioque, as a piece of Trinitarian reflection, belongs to theology, not economy; and this is true even if the Filioque is false. 

I think I have said all that can be said on this topic, so I will now withdraw back into lurking mode.       




 

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 06, 2011, 03:52:46 PM
I must say that this ongoing exchange is a keeper!! 

It may well be why we've been in schism for a thousand years.

It may even explain the next thousand to come.

During that time, flawed and all as I am, I hope to remain a Doubtless Purveyor of Filioque, of nothing more than for the fun of it all!!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on April 06, 2011, 05:43:47 PM
I must say that this ongoing exchange is a keeper!!  

It may well be why we've been in schism for a thousand years.

It may even explain the next thousand to come.

During that time, flawed and all as I am, I hope to remain a Doubtless Purveyor of Filioque, of nothing more than for the fun of it all!!
So you admit that you might be wrong? 8)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 06, 2011, 05:55:04 PM
I must say that this ongoing exchange is a keeper!!  

It may well be why we've been in schism for a thousand years.

It may even explain the next thousand to come.

During that time, flawed and all as I am, I hope to remain a Doubtless Purveyor of Filioque, of nothing more than for the fun of it all!!
So you admit that you might be wrong? 8)

Not precisely  :P
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: akimel on April 06, 2011, 06:45:53 PM
I need to make two further comments:

First, Karl Rahner is not the originator of the distinction between theology and economy, popularly expressed today as the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinities.  This distinction is a scholastic commonplace, grounded in the teachings of the Nicene Fathers.  Rahner, rather, is known for his assertion of the (relative) identity of the immanent and economic Trinities.  This identity has been employed by contemporary Western theologians to defend the Filioque. Karl Rahner and Karl Barth immediately come to mind.  In response to this Western argument, Eastern theologians, such as Zizioulas, have responded by denying the identity of the immanent and economic Trinities: a distinction between the two must be maintained, they say, lest history and creaturely becoming is read back into the eternal being.     

Second, I have already mentioned three Orthodox theologians who assert the distinction between theology and economy--Florovsky, Lossky, and Zizioiulas.  Contrary to what you suggest, Fr Giryus, none of them can be said to have been influenced by Latin theologians regarding their formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity.  They certainly did not learn the theology/economy distinction from Rahner.  They learned it, rather, from the Church Fathers. 

How about Fr Michael Pomazansky?  I hope you will not suggest that he too was corrupted by contemporary Catholic theology.

Quote
The dogma of the begetting of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father shows the mystical inner relations of the Persons in God and the life of God within Himself. One must clearly distinguish these relations which are pre-eternal, from all eternity, and outside of time, from the manifestations of the Holy Trinity in the created world, from the activities and manifestations of God's Providence in the world as they have been expressed in such events as the creation of the world, the coming of the Son of God to earth, His Incarnation, and the sending down of the Holy Spirit. These providential manifestations and activities have been accomplished in time. In historical time the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary by the descent upon Her of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). In historical time, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at the time of His baptism by John. In historical time, the Holy Spirit was sent down by the Son from the Father, appearing in the form of fiery tongues. The Son came to earth through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is sent down by the Son in accordance with the promise, "the Comforter ... Whom l will send unto you from the Father" (John 15:26). Concerning the pre-eternal begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, one might ask: "When was this begetting and this procession?" St. Gregory the Theologian replies: "This was before when itself. You have heard about the begetting; do not be curious to know in what form this begetting was. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds." (pp. 83-84)

Pomazansky then goes on to employ the theology/economy distinction to explain what Eastern Fathers meant when they spoke of the Spirit proceeding "through the Son":  the phrase refers not to the essential relations of the Divine Hypostases but to the "manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the world, that is, to the providential actions of the Holy Trinity, and not to the life of God in Himself" (p. 90).  Here we find the distinction between God in himself and God manifested and revealed in the world invoked precisely to refute the Filioque!  This distinction, in other words, enables us to distinguish between the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son at Pentecost.  Zizioulas also makes this point in his article "One Single Source (http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm)."

As my final witness, I call to the stand Fr Boris Bobrinskoy:

Quote
Reflecting the thought of the Church Fathers, Orthodox theology rightly distinguishes between trinitarian "theology" and trinitarian "economy."  Trinitarian theology deals with the mystery of the Trinity in its eternal "immanence," the infinite, blessed communion of the divine Persons among themselves, without reference to creation.  Trinitarian economy, on the other hand, refers to the concerted activity of the three Persons ad extra, in creation, as they maintain and restore the created world to a state of well-being adn communion with God.   This distinction between trinitarian theology and trinitarian economy is both fundamental and relative.

It is fundamental in the sense that although the world and human existence are defined with essential reference to God, God cannot be defined either by or for the world.  He possesses in Himself His own fundamental reason for being, which is fully complete and totally self-sufficient.

Yet it is also relative, because Christian theology is in constant tension between (a) the "soteriological" perspective of revelation--that is, all that God teaches us about Himself in fact concerns our salvation and eternal life--and (b) the divine "ontology" of question of "being."  Orthodox theology has thus witnessed a remarkable development, prompted as much by a reaction against Arianism as by an impulse and necessity intrinsic to the human mind.  Beginning with St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians, Orthodox thought moved from the level of the trinitarian economy of salvation to a trinitarian theology, a contemplation of the Holy Trinity in Itself, pressing to the outer limits of what human thought and language can express regarding the eternal properties or attributes of the One God and the Divine Persons.  This development, from "economy" to "theology," provided the foundation for Orthodox dogmatic theology and its doctrine of God in His incomprehensible essence, His trinitarian Hypostases, and His energies in which the human person is called to participate. (The Mystery of the Trinity, pp. 2-3)

But as I said, I know you must already know this, Fr Giryus, and have perhaps just momentarily forgotten it, perhaps because theology/economy distinction was invoked in a controversial discussion of the Filioque.     
 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on April 06, 2011, 07:00:39 PM
I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: akimel on April 06, 2011, 07:16:48 PM
I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?

No, I'm saying just the opposite.  As formulated by Latin theologians, the Filioque refers to the eternal, pre-temporal procession of the Spirit, and it is for precisely this reason that the Filioque doesn't impact a proper understanding of the Incarnation (as proposed by the original poster). 

As you know John 15:26 has sometimes been cited by Western theologians as biblical proof of the Filioque:  "When the Advocate comes whom I will send, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify to me" (Jn 15:26).  Ditto John 14:26 and 16:7.  The Orthodox have traditionally responded that this texts refer to a temporal mission of the Spirit, specifically the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.  This response presumes the distinction between the essential and economic Trinities, i.e., between theology and economy. 

This is the only point I am trying to make.  I am not trying to argue for the Filioque.  I am simply attempting to properly locate the Filioque within Trinitarian reflection. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 06, 2011, 08:08:53 PM
Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?


Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Quote
Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

30. Whenever the union of the Greek and Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.

Granting that this is so, the second question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase "and from the Son" to the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople. The difficulty is increased in that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus decreed that no additions should be made to the Nicene Creed: "The holy Council decrees that it is lawful for no one to produce or compose a Faith other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea together with the Holy Spirit." It has been asserted in answer to this question that it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.

On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase "and from the Son." On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase "and from the Son."

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add "and from the Son" to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, "to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins."

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said "and from the Son" in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.

There is nothing at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6, of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase "and from the Son," provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church's power of making this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however, it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith. However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church.

31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.
Quote
The Greeks are bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but they are not bound to proclaim it in the Creed.
Cf. Benedict XIV Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742:

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 06, 2011, 08:14:48 PM
Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?
No, at the present time the Vatican website only contains papal encyclicals that go back to the pontificate of Leo XIII.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 06, 2011, 08:16:08 PM
Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

I don't know how many times Pope John Paul II recited the creed in its original form, but I believe it was quite a few.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 06, 2011, 08:17:34 PM
I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?

No, I'm saying just the opposite.  As formulated by Latin theologians, the Filioque refers to the eternal, pre-temporal procession of the Spirit, and it is for precisely this reason that the Filioque doesn't impact a proper understanding of the Incarnation (as proposed by the original poster). 

As you know John 15:26 has sometimes been cited by Western theologians as biblical proof of the Filioque:  "When the Advocate comes whom I will send, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify to me" (Jn 15:26).  Ditto John 14:26 and 16:7.  The Orthodox have traditionally responded that this texts refer to a temporal mission of the Spirit, specifically the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.  This response presumes the distinction between the essential and economic Trinities, i.e., between theology and economy. 

This is the only point I am trying to make.  I am not trying to argue for the Filioque.  I am simply attempting to properly locate the Filioque within Trinitarian reflection. 
Orthodox sources - as I am sure you are aware - distinguish between procession (ekporeusis), which concerns the origin of the Spirit's hypostasis from the Father, with the sending (pempo) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, which concerns the Spirit's shining forth, both temporally and eternally.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 06, 2011, 08:19:08 PM
Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

I don't know how many times Pope John Paul II recited the creed in its original form, but I believe it was quite a few.
I do not know the specific number of times either, but he always omitted the filioque when reciting the creed in common with Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 06, 2011, 08:23:03 PM
I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?

No, I'm saying just the opposite.  As formulated by Latin theologians, the Filioque refers to the eternal, pre-temporal procession of the Spirit, and it is for precisely this reason that the Filioque doesn't impact a proper understanding of the Incarnation (as proposed by the original poster).
I agree that the late medieval filioque is not so much a Christological problem, but is instead a Triadological problem, because as formulated by the Carolingians, and the later by the Scholastics, it confuses the Holy Spirit's procession of origin from the Father alone, with His shining forth - both temporally and eternally - from the Father through the Son.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2011, 08:23:20 PM
Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.

Have a look on papalencyclicals.net

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: podkarpatska on April 06, 2011, 08:50:08 PM
Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.

Have a look on papalencyclicals.net

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

Thank you for posting that. It explains much in terms of the thinking of the Latin bishopric's attitude towards the Greek Catholics when they became exposed to them in North America. Certainly at the time of the promulgation of this in 1755, Rome certainly did not view the Eastern Catholics as 'sui juris' Churches as they attempted to redefine them after Vatican II.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 07, 2011, 11:41:15 AM
Well, so much for your lurking attempts!   :laugh:

As you have quoted, this categorizations as worded appear in modern writers.  As I said, I could not trace this past Rahner chronologically-speaking.  It has been used by modern writers as 'theology' and 'economy' but you still have not proved anything about my original objection, which is that these categories are not dogmatic.

Now, I was taught that we cannot know the unknowable, and that our only knowledge of the Trinity comes through observation of Divine activity to the extent we are capable.  However, I was also taught that the Trinity is a great mystery and that relying on categories and theologizing in the modern sense is dangerous.  These things are theolegoumena and best left alone, relying on the dogmatic statements of the Church.

I don't see why you are having difficulty understanding my position: such 'categories' cannot be used to amend the dogma of the Church.  All the Orthodox writers you quoted would agree with this.  This theory is secondary and not of like standing with dogma.  I don't care if you can show me X number of saints who taught this exact terminology: if this terminology and its usage is not confirmed by the Universal Church as dogma, it has secondary standing.

Perhaps this is an inherent problem between East and West, since the West has dogmatized many of its earlier theolegoumena, such as Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, Purgatory, etc. Thus, theolegoumena have a higher standing with dogma.

I am not insulting any particular saint or theologian when I say that his writings are theolegoumena, because some are helpful and some are not.  However, I will state firmly that any theolegoumena, no matter who wrote it, is being misused when it is used to twist or revise dogma in a new direction.  Thus, justifying heresy with theolegoumena requires an answer that differentiates between theory and fact.  These categories are theory, bu the Creed is fact.  The Church of Rome had no business tampering with the Teaching of the Universal Church.

Now, I think I have made it clear.  I believe if you go back through my writings here, you can see that I am not a reactionary when it comes to the Church of Rome.  I have no abiding hatred, and I have been privileged to call several pious Roman Catholics my friends and teachers.  I can even look on ministries of their community worthy of emulation and praise.  But, when it comes to dogma, there is no negotiation.

Yes, Mary, I think that there not much hope for reconciliation unless the Church of Rome becomes willing to reconsider and pull back from its additional dogmas.  I know that on the whole Orthodox Church is not willing to negotiate on the Creed and it will have to stand as it is.


But as I said, I know you must already know this, Fr Giryus, and have perhaps just momentarily forgotten it, perhaps because theology/economy distinction was invoked in a controversial discussion of the Filioque.     
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ativan on April 07, 2011, 12:28:42 PM
Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Thank you; This is very nice link.

I heard from a Catholic that Filioque-ish support has roots in Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximus the Confessor and Cyril of Alexandria. I tried to gather some information. So far I did not get much but on of the Catholic source says the other way round, that Cappadocian Fathers teachings were directly opposite to Filioque. There's some mention of St. Maximus explaining the issue (that problem was secondary to Latin language's peculiarity). Could anybody point me to nice source (Orthodox as well as Catholic) to this issue please with quotes from those Saints?

Thank you again
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 12:40:39 PM

Yes, Mary, I think that there not much hope for reconciliation unless the Church of Rome becomes willing to reconsider and pull back from its additional dogmas.  I know that on the whole Orthodox Church is not willing to negotiate on the Creed and it will have to stand as it is.[/font][/size]


I am sorry that you take the position here that you do, but I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque.    So either they are wrong or you are wrong, or you both are right to some degree, but I certainly have been around long enough to know that your perspective is not the only one and may not, at this point, be the dominant one.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Mickey on April 07, 2011, 01:12:25 PM
I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 07, 2011, 03:09:06 PM
Allatae Sunt Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Thank you; This is very nice link.
I heard from a Catholic that Filioque-ish support has roots in Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximus the Confessor and Cyril of Alexandria. I tried to gather some information. So far I did not get much but on of the Catholic source says the other way round, that Cappadocian Fathers teachings were directly opposite to Filioque. There's some mention of St. Maximus explaining the issue (that problem was secondary to Latin language's peculiarity). Could anybody point me to nice source (Orthodox as well as Catholic) to this issue please with quotes from those Saints?
Thank you again

I posted from Maximus the Confessor here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34923.msg553375.html#msg553375
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 04:13:18 PM
I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 05:37:03 PM
I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 :)  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 05:45:09 PM
Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.  Filioque defines relationships not essences:

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque. 

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
What would St. Gregory have to say about the chart in the middle?
(http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg)
http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 05:49:12 PM
St. Gregory and I would most likely agree that the chart below is very poor catechesis and takes an easy and erroneous path to teaching what is quite simple to do without all the bows and curlicues...

As I noted in the other thread where you took this chart from...I was not taught this as a young person or as an older student of the faith.

So the only real case you have here is that there's poor catechesis in the Catholic Church...Well that's not precisely news.

Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.  Filioque defines relationships not essences:

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque. 

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
What would St. Gregory have to say about the chart in the middle?
(http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg)
http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 07, 2011, 06:43:14 PM
Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  ;)

Agreed?   :D


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 :)  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 06:51:59 PM
I don't know that we are bound to repeat the errors of the past, Father.  I am hoping that if the record at Florence is revisited and the accusations of Photius are found to be what I think they are, only accusations...I am hoping that the truth will prevail and we will learn to live with our differences without calling them heresy if they are indeed not heresy.

I think there are enough learned men in Orthodoxy leaning in that direction to tip the balance...but I cannot say that with absolute certitude, but it is a hope that I keep open.

Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  ;)

Agreed?   :D


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 :)  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 07, 2011, 07:18:54 PM
Yes, I also don't believe that anyone is bound to the errors of the past, which is why I hope that Rome will repeal its unilateral dogmatic proclamations.

Let's not forget, we are facing two issues: the content of the theological addition, then the irregular manner in which it was added.
 



I don't know that we are bound to repeat the errors of the past, Father.  I am hoping that if the record at Florence is revisited and the accusations of Photius are found to be what I think they are, only accusations...I am hoping that the truth will prevail and we will learn to live with our differences without calling them heresy if they are indeed not heresy.

I think there are enough learned men in Orthodoxy leaning in that direction to tip the balance...but I cannot say that with absolute certitude, but it is a hope that I keep open.

Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  ;)

Agreed?   :D


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 :)  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 07:30:41 PM
I hope that the dogmatic definitions that have occurred during the schism are considered fairly on both sides and regularized so that they may be acceptable to all.  That does not mean that I think the west needs to abjure her teachings.

Also I don't really take any Orthodox believer too seriously when they speak to me of ecclesial "irregularities" that are all one sided.... :)

Yes, I also don't believe that anyone is bound to the errors of the past, which is why I hope that Rome will repeal its unilateral dogmatic proclamations.

Let's not forget, we are facing two issues: the content of the theological addition, then the irregular manner in which it was added.
 



I don't know that we are bound to repeat the errors of the past, Father.  I am hoping that if the record at Florence is revisited and the accusations of Photius are found to be what I think they are, only accusations...I am hoping that the truth will prevail and we will learn to live with our differences without calling them heresy if they are indeed not heresy.

I think there are enough learned men in Orthodoxy leaning in that direction to tip the balance...but I cannot say that with absolute certitude, but it is a hope that I keep open.

Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  ;)

Agreed?   :D


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 :)  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 07:39:49 PM
Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy? Today's reading in the RCC : How if you don't believe in Moses you deny Christ. Friendly reminder of the message.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Asteriktos on April 07, 2011, 07:49:07 PM
How did creationism get into this?  ???
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 07:50:10 PM
I hope that the dogmatic definitions that have occurred during the schism are considered fairly on both sides and regularized so that they may be acceptable to all.  That does not mean that I think the west needs to abjure her teachings.

Also I don't really take any Orthodox believer too seriously when they speak to me of ecclesial "irregularities" that are all one sided.... :)
Yes, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 07, 2011, 07:56:15 PM
So the only real case you have here is that there's poor catechesis in the Catholic Church...Well that's not precisely news.

Ummmm, no. It could very well be an indication that this is the authentic teaching of your "church".
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 07:59:19 PM
How did creationism get into this?  ???

Yes I believe in Moses, if that makes me a creationist, because I refuse to trample on the literal meaning of scripture like the Greatest Saints of the Church who wrote our liturgies (ie : St. Basil who was a "creationist" as some would say, creationist liturgy you are celebrating) and most trusted commentaries on the scriptures then so be it. It came up because heresy puts a soul in danger and saying Genesis is "all a myth" is clearly putting others souls in danger. It is a Heresy.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM
I think there are enough learned men in Orthodoxy leaning in that direction to tip the balance...but I cannot say that with absolute certitude, but it is a hope that I keep open

I have actually seen indications very recently that the OO now are starting to swing back to a more conservative position on the Chalcedon issue (though this trend cannot be obvious and apparent yet because of how long and how far it swung in a liberal direction), and if that issue, in which there was even far more conciliation, is going back in that direction, then I think it's pretty much a given that a similar trend will be going on regarding the filioque.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 07, 2011, 08:03:15 PM
Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy?

There are really two very significant facts that you are getting wrong just in this one sentence about Darwinian evolution. The first fact is that humans are actually classified as a form of ape, not as something that evolved out of apes. Second is the fact that it is not understood that humans evolved from any other currently existent apes, but rather from a common ancestor we had with them.

Amazing how much vitriol you direct against this system of thought despite clearly not understanding it.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Asteriktos on April 07, 2011, 08:03:36 PM
How did creationism get into this?  ???

Yes I believe in Moses, if that makes me a creationist, because I refuse to trample on the literal meaning of scripture like the Greatest Saints of the Church who wrote our liturgies (ie : St. Basil who was a "creationist" as some would say, creationist liturgy you are celebrating) and most trusted commentaries on the scriptures then so be it. It came up because heresy puts a soul in danger and saying Genesis is "all a myth" is clearly putting others souls in danger. It is a Heresy.

I'm asking why you're posting this stuff in a thread that doesn't have anything to do with that? I understand that threads go off topic, but you're just pulling topics out of thin air...
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 07, 2011, 08:05:25 PM
How did creationism get into this?  ???

Yes I believe in Moses, if that makes me a creationist, because I refuse to trample on the literal meaning of scripture like the Greatest Saints of the Church who wrote our liturgies (ie : St. Basil who was a "creationist" as some would say, creationist liturgy you are celebrating) and most trusted commentaries on the scriptures then so be it. It came up because heresy puts a soul in danger and saying Genesis is "all a myth" is clearly putting others souls in danger. It is a Heresy.

You are presenting a false dilemma. Literalism and liberal mythological dismissivism (yes I just made that word up) are not the only two ways of interpreting scripture.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 08:06:45 PM
Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy?

There are really two very significant facts that you are getting wrong just in this one sentence about Darwinian evolution. The first fact is that humans are actually classified as a form of ape, not as something that evolved out of apes. Second is the fact that it is not understood that humans evolved from any other currently existent apes, but rather from a common ancestor we had with them.

Amazing how much vitriol you direct against this system of thought despite clearly not understanding it.

Elder Paisios warned that someday people would come to this, calling Christ's Mother and thus Christ a descendant of apes. Guess he was right...

Look, this might be the beginning of the "Anglican fall" of Roman Catholics unless they bury this garbage as soon as possible. Foundations, if you remove the foundation the whole building crumbles. The chief hierarch of the RCC is not a good person, he is not putting others interests first (Philippians 2:4). May the OC not make a similar dread mistake.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Asteriktos on April 07, 2011, 08:08:31 PM
If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  :P
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 08:28:53 PM
If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  :P

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
-Genesis 2:7

Now please...who would be unkind enough with their neighbor and so unconcerned with his salvation so as to throw away the first book of the bible that says man was created from dust (not apes mind you) ? Yes, the chief hierarch of the RCC did this. Todays reading in the RCC lectionary by coincidence :

 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-John 5:46-47

I advise people to consider changing jurisdiction to another Apostolic Church if this remains in place. We are talking about the foundation of the entire Bible here...
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 07, 2011, 08:35:39 PM
If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  :P

We did either way. It's just a significantly longer process from dirt to human in Darwinian evolution.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on April 07, 2011, 08:37:26 PM
If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  :P

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
-Genesis 2:7

Now please...who would be unkind enough with their neighbor and so unconcerned with his salvation so as to throw away the first book of the bible that says man was created from dust (not apes mind you) ? Yes, the chief hierarch of the RCC did this. Todays reading in the RCC lectionary by coincidence :

 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-John 5:46-47

I advise people to consider changing jurisdiction to another Apostolic Church if this remains in place. We are talking about the foundation of the entire Bible here...

Man still comes from dirt indirectly in Darwinian evolution.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Asteriktos on April 07, 2011, 08:41:44 PM
If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  :P

We did either way. It's just a significantly longer process from dirt to human in Darwinian evolution.

I prefer to think of us as coming from pond scum in the evolutionary model--it just has a nicer ring to it.  8)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 07, 2011, 11:55:39 PM
Mary isn't staying on track here, obviously.  Again, she's confusing the dogmatic process with everything else.  It seems to happen quite a bit in this conversation, something I have been protesting but not getting through.

It is starting to look like a xerox.

Again, we also got another one of Mary's anonymous Keepers of Orthodox Odd Knowledge friends thrown in to boot.  Whew!  It is like riding the blade of a blender... around and around again.  [/dizzy]



I hope that the dogmatic definitions that have occurred during the schism are considered fairly on both sides and regularized so that they may be acceptable to all.  That does not mean that I think the west needs to abjure her teachings.

Also I don't really take any Orthodox believer too seriously when they speak to me of ecclesial "irregularities" that are all one sided.... :)
Yes, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2011, 12:16:02 AM
Which version of the OT in English translation goes wildly literal and calls "Adam" properly "Earthling"?

Mud Creature or Earth Creature or Dirt Creature wouldn't be bad.

And to the pond scum point, his predecessor would have been Swamp Thing.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Father H on April 08, 2011, 12:42:46 AM
Yes.  But I think she does have good intentions (I know, I know, I deserve ice balls being thrown at me for saying so...)  She is simply dedicated to the Bishop of Rome.  You know, as the result of a search I was doing, I was reading over at the one Catholic Forums site one person choosing between Orthodoxy and RCism that Orthodox simply "dodge" the evidence for the supremicy of Rome.  Of course, we have a few works on the subject that show otherwise.  However, the topic was St. Maximus the Confessor.   One must admit that St. Maximus did not like Constantinople and favored Rome.  In fact, St. Maximus for a time went to great lengths to defend a heretical pope of Rome (which afterwards he could not do anymore once the evidence piled up).  But he is a saint in that he still upheld the doctrine that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity (just as we find centuries before, the Quartodecimian saints were still held as Saints because, even though they held a practice that was contrary to their belief to some degree, they still held that Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day, the Lord's day).  We even have some local councils that outwardly expressed that the Bishop of Rome is not first, yet they are not available in English, and were superceded by others anyway.  In the Ecumenical Councils, there is only one Church that is called the "mother of all Churches," who was--before Rome--the primatial Church (i.e. Jerusalem), yet she still remains 4th in the diptychs.   Well, I am straying off the topic but it seems to me that ElijahMaria, although many of us (including me) see her as misled, yet at the same time, even Saints--or at least one, St. Maximus--went out of his way to defend a heretic (Honorius) who expressly contradicted his own teaching regarding monotheletism, and in the same tomos tried to defend the same heretic pope against accusations of heresy in terms of filioque.   Yet, even when doing so, he upheld the teachings of the Church, not seeing the inconsistancy that the Church herself would later see (and, indeed condemn).  Well, it is late, and I hope that my point is well received.      

Mary isn't staying on track here, obviously.  Again, she's confusing the dogmatic process with everything else.  It seems to happen quite a bit in this conversation, something I have been protesting but not getting through.

It is starting to look like a xerox.

Again, we also got another one of Mary's anonymous Keepers of Orthodox Odd Knowledge friends thrown in to boot.  Whew!  It is like riding the blade of a blender... around and around again.  [/dizzy]



I hope that the dogmatic definitions that have occurred during the schism are considered fairly on both sides and regularized so that they may be acceptable to all.  That does not mean that I think the west needs to abjure her teachings.

Also I don't really take any Orthodox believer too seriously when they speak to me of ecclesial "irregularities" that are all one sided.... :)
Yes, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: FatherGiryus on April 08, 2011, 01:32:29 AM
No snow here in California, father!  You are very safe!  :laugh:

I'm not saying Mary is evil, nor am I saying all RCs are going to hell.  I happen to think that their teachings are not in keeping with those of the Church, while I know that they believe the opposite.  I don't say 'heretic!' with glee, nor do I shout insults.  While I do get frustrated with Mary at times, I do not bear any malice.


Yes.  But I think she does have good intentions (I know, I know, I deserve ice balls being thrown at me for saying so...)  She is simply dedicated to the Bishop of Rome.  You know, as the result of a search I was doing, I was reading over at the one Catholic Forums site one person choosing between Orthodoxy and RCism that Orthodox simply "dodge" the evidence for the supremicy of Rome.  Of course, we have a few works on the subject that show otherwise.  However, the topic was St. Maximus the Confessor.   One must admit that St. Maximus did not like Constantinople and favored Rome.  In fact, St. Maximus for a time went to great lengths to defend a heretical pope of Rome (which afterwards he could not do anymore once the evidence piled up).  But he is a saint in that he still upheld the doctrine that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity (just as we find centuries before, the Quartodecimian saints were still held as Saints because, even though they held a practice that was contrary to their belief to some degree, they still held that Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day, the Lord's day).  We even have some local councils that outwardly expressed that the Bishop of Rome is not first, yet they are not available in English, and were superceded by others anyway.  In the Ecumenical Councils, there is only one Church that is called the "mother of all Churches," who was--before Rome--the primatial Church (i.e. Jerusalem), yet she still remains 4th in the diptychs.   Well, I am straying off the topic but it seems to me that ElijahMaria, although many of us (including me) see her as misled, yet at the same time, even Saints--or at least one, St. Maximus--went out of his way to defend a heretic (Honorius) who expressly contradicted his own teaching regarding monotheletism, and in the same tomos tried to defend the same heretic pope against accusations of heresy in terms of filioque.   Yet, even when doing so, he upheld the teachings of the Church, not seeing the inconsistancy that the Church herself would later see (and, indeed condemn).  Well, it is late, and I hope that my point is well received.      

Mary isn't staying on track here, obviously.  Again, she's confusing the dogmatic process with everything else.  It seems to happen quite a bit in this conversation, something I have been protesting but not getting through.

It is starting to look like a xerox.

Again, we also got another one of Mary's anonymous Keepers of Orthodox Odd Knowledge friends thrown in to boot.  Whew!  It is like riding the blade of a blender... around and around again.  [/dizzy]



I hope that the dogmatic definitions that have occurred during the schism are considered fairly on both sides and regularized so that they may be acceptable to all.  That does not mean that I think the west needs to abjure her teachings.

Also I don't really take any Orthodox believer too seriously when they speak to me of ecclesial "irregularities" that are all one sided.... :)
Yes, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 08, 2011, 01:10:43 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on April 08, 2011, 01:19:35 PM
Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy?

There are really two very significant facts that you are getting wrong just in this one sentence about Darwinian evolution. The first fact is that humans are actually classified as a form of ape, not as something that evolved out of apes. Second is the fact that it is not understood that humans evolved from any other currently existent apes, but rather from a common ancestor we had with them.

Amazing how much vitriol you direct against this system of thought despite clearly not understanding it.
But, not to defend creationism, Rafa is correct that this "common ancestor" that Homo sapiens shares with currently living apes, was, in fact, an ape.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on April 08, 2011, 01:27:02 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 08, 2011, 02:09:45 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.

The reason that I am absolutely against removal of filioque from the Creed and catechesis, which is what is recommended by our bilateral consultation here in the United States, is precisely because it does illuminate a part of our "knowledge" of Trinity that does not become so clearly illumined by any other teaching.

It is also now a long part of papal Catholic tradition and you don't just take something and dump it, particularly if it is true and real.

I appreciate what the good and kind Orthodox priests have said here to and about me.  I trust the two of you for your blessings and best intentions.  But I have come too far along this way to turn back simply because it would be easier for me and more pleasant.

And because I do grasp more of the teaching of my Church than I have ever done before I'd be another Professor Gilbert or some of the other Orthodox scholars and clergy who do see what I see but whose timing is off for pressing the point until we get past some of the other barriers to our renewed union. 

So even if I entered Orthodoxy, I would not then just turn around and start teaching something that I know not to be true.  Can't do...not don't want to...but simply can not do that.  My mind, heart and soul would not allow me to lie to you or to myself and that is what it would require for me to be "truly" Orthodox as you are Orthodox.  I beg your forgiveness and love you with all my heart, in Christ, because you want the best for me...and that is a great gift!!

M.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 28, 2011, 01:06:53 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2011, 01:12:15 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 28, 2011, 01:19:52 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
I have witnessed this time and again as well.   :-\
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: J Michael on April 28, 2011, 01:31:06 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
I have witnessed this time and again as well.   :-\

Thankfully and fortunately, that is not the position of *all* Eastern Orthodox--including this one!  ;)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Melodist on April 28, 2011, 01:47:07 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2011, 02:14:52 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
I have witnessed this time and again as well.   :-\

Thankfully and fortunately, that is not the position of *all* Eastern Orthodox--including this one!  ;)
Praise God! I could tell from your posts that you are not included in the Group I was discussing above. :)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2011, 02:16:18 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
I have always understood this proceeding from both as from one to mean what St. John of Damascus means by the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 28, 2011, 02:19:42 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
I think you are correct about us meaning different things when we refer to the Holy Spirit's procession. I have heard both the fact the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ and that Jesus had to ascend before the Holy Spirit could be sent cited to defend the filioque. Obviously this is not the same procession that the Eastern Orthodox are talking about. It almost seems as if procession has a double meaning for us (the sending of the Spirit in addition to the origin of the Spirit) whereas, in Eastern Orthodoxy, procession means only one thing (origin).

This is kind of exciting, at least to me, because it seems to indicate that we do not really profess entirely different beliefs when it comes to the Holy Spirit, but rather we just word it differently. After all, wouldn't most Eastern Orthodox agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son if the word proceed was used to indicate the sending of the Spirit and not just the origin?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: biro on April 28, 2011, 02:23:20 PM
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  :P
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2011, 02:24:28 PM
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  :P
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. ;)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 28, 2011, 02:28:01 PM
Christus resurrexit!
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  :P
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. ;)
You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 28, 2011, 02:29:25 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

Jetavan,

As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is not necessary to include every single belief in the creed. The last line of your post is a good example of this, because in the creed (in English) we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" even though we could say "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son". (See this question (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34923.msg551161.html#msg551161) and the answers which follow.)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 28, 2011, 02:29:40 PM
Christus resurrexit!
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  :P
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. ;)
You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
Supremecy of a City State? <sigh> you are so confused, one doesn't even know where to begin with you... Oh wait, your old Lutheran Anti-Catholicism is a good place to start. It goes a long way in explaining why you are the way  you are.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: biro on April 28, 2011, 02:30:12 PM
I'm not a "you," being neither a part of my former church nor a chrismated member of my 'new' one.  :-[ I guess you could say I don't have a church home, officially. What the heck am I?  ???

Or, we could all go round in circles, again and again... another 957 years.  :'(
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 28, 2011, 02:30:40 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.

Per usual you have a pretty clear grasp of what's what.  The adjustment that I would make to what you've said about the Catholic position is that the phrase "AS from one principle" is the recognition of the relationship of the Son to the Father as distinct from the relationship between the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit....and...here's the adjustment...it does so without negating the fact that the papal Church still recognizes that the Father is the author of all divinity. as do the Holy Fathers.  That means the Father is the anarch who is the source of all divinity...in unity and in hypostasis...in time and through eternity.

Don't know if that clarifies anything or not for you...it might.

M.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 28, 2011, 02:52:10 PM
Christus resurrexit!
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  :P
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. ;)
You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
Supremecy of a City State? <sigh> you are so confused, one doesn't even know where to begin with you...

Start with distinguishing the Lateran Treaty from the Donation of Constantine, besides that Constantine's name was forged on the "Donation" but Mussolini actually signed the Lateran with your supreme pontiff.

Oh wait, your old Lutheran Anti-Catholicism is a good place to start. It goes a long way in explaining why you are the way  you are.
I'm afraid you're going to go older than that, further back in the history of the Papal States:
Quote
But even after this, John still could not make up his mind to break all his relations with the Pope. For about three years the Church of Constantinople had no Patriarch after the death of Metrophanes, and the vacant see was given to Gregory Mamma, the Emperor's confessor, and one of the most active causes of the Florentine union. He himself wrote objections to Mark's writings and began a dispute in Constantinople between the principal defenders of Orthodoxy and the Latin litterati The Pope named him for his zeal in the Latin cause, Patriarch also of the Latin party then in Constantinople.  But notwithstanding all his efforts, as the Pope himself writes, he could not proclaim and enact the decree passed in Florence.  So strong was the aversion of the clergy and people to the Latin union, which was attained at the sacrifice of Orthodoxy! The Bishops and clergy of Constantinople demanded, that an Ecumenical Council should be held in Constantinople itself to terminate all the evil caused by the adherents of the union [the signers at Florence made their signatures contingent on a Council being held in the East to confirm Florence].  But the Emperor John died (Oct. 31, 1448) before he had time to satisfy these demands; at all events before his death he rejected all union with the Church of Rome [sic].  At last the innermost wishes of the orthodox pastors and people were fulfilled. A year and a half after Constantine's accession to the throne of Byzantium, three Eastern Patriarchs in whose name, though without their consent, the Florentine unorthodox "decree" was signed, viz., [Pope] Philotheus of Alexandria, [Patriarch] Dorotheus of Antioch [i.e. the predecessors of my primates] and Theophanes of Jerusalem, assembled in Constantinople with many Metropolitans and Bishops to quiet the disturbed Church. Assembling a Council in the Church of S. Sophia in Constantinople, they deprived Gregory Mamma of his patriarchal throne and appointed the Orthodox Athanasius in his place, and then in the name of all the Eastern Church rejected the decree of the Council of Florence which they convicted as having acted contrary to the orthodox faith, and accused the Church of Rome of many digressions from the ancient rules and rites of the Church Ecumenical Gregory soon after this left as a fugitive for Rome (August, 1451.).
The history of the Council of Florence By Aleksandr Vasilýevich Gorski
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA175&dq=Patriarch%20of%20Antioch%20Council%20of%20Florence&cd=1&id=z_IQAAAAIAAJ&output=text
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Melodist on April 28, 2011, 03:02:06 PM
If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.

I don't really see it taught like that in the RC, unless I'm misunderstanding something, but that the Father and the Son together is the one source.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 28, 2011, 03:11:26 PM
If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.

I don't really see it taught like that in the RC, unless I'm misunderstanding something, but that the Father and the Son together is the one source.

That is not accurate.  What you are suggesting, my Church, would call heresy.  So yes.  In this case you are misunderstanding something.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 28, 2011, 03:55:38 PM
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 28, 2011, 04:07:53 PM
Cause of divinity in reality is one thing, and the creature's act of identifying and defining source(s) of hypostatic relationship is quite something else...

And what you have posted is so far out of context so as to be elliptically meaningless in present form.

The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 28, 2011, 04:32:59 PM
Christos Voskrese!
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
Cause of divinity in reality is one thing, and the creature's act of identifying and defining source(s) of hypostatic relationship is quite something else...

And what you have posted is so far out of context so as to be elliptically meaningless in present form.
Care to put some meat on that bone and back it up with the alleged missing "context"?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 28, 2011, 07:05:25 PM
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

Hi Apotheoun. As long as we've got you here, maybe you can answer something I've been wondering: how much of the RCC teaching about the filioque is considered dogma?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 28, 2011, 07:06:37 PM
You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
Supremecy of a City State?

Nice. :)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 28, 2011, 07:33:45 PM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/mdpd.htm

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp

The truth as taught by the Church is to be believed.   It is really not rocket science.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 28, 2011, 09:50:51 PM
Christ is risen!
If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.

I don't really see it taught like that in the RC, unless I'm misunderstanding something, but that the Father and the Son together is the one source.

That is not accurate.  What you are suggesting, my Church, would call heresy.  So yes.  In this case you are misunderstanding something.
No, it has taught heresy. He understands correctly.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 28, 2011, 10:10:32 PM
I don't really see it taught like that in the RC, unless I'm misunderstanding something, but that the Father and the Son together is the one source.

Apotheoun can probably answer this better than I can, but I believe the Council of Florence said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both "as from one source", but never actually said "the Father and the Son together are the one source."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Melodist on April 29, 2011, 11:28:10 AM
Council of Florence (http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm) (Yes, I read the paragraph above this one, but it becomes confusing here.)
Quote
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

CCC Par 248 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#II)
Quote
248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 12:19:40 PM
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
So then, why are you in communion with us?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 12:25:09 PM
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
So then, why are you in communion with us?

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fr. Alexis on April 29, 2011, 01:05:27 PM
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
So then, why are you in communion with us?

The title of this thread is "Why Filioque Is a Christological Error". I know you can read.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Fr. Alexis on April 29, 2011, 01:06:40 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 01:22:46 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 01:40:01 PM
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
So then, why are you in communion with us?
I thought I was fairly precise in what I said:  "This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church."  You will notice that I did not say that it is contrary to the doctrine of the Melkite Catholic Church, although it clearly does not coincide with our teaching, but we Melkites try to give our Roman friends the benefit of the doubt about this non-dogmatic position of the Western Church.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 01:40:41 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 01:44:21 PM
So then, why are you in communion with us?
One reason I remain Eastern Catholic is so that I can continue to be a thorn in the side of bigoted Roman Catholics.  Just kidding of course.  Why would I want to leave the Melkite Church?  It is my spiritual home.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 02:04:46 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 02:19:44 PM
So then, why are you in communion with us?
One reason I remain Eastern Catholic is so that I can continue to be a thorn in the side of bigoted Roman Catholics.  Just kidding of course.  Why would I want to leave the Melkite Church?  It is my spiritual home.
It just seems weird for you to be incommunion with those you would logically have to conclude are heretics...
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:30:54 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:36:17 PM
So then, why are you in communion with us?
One reason I remain Eastern Catholic is so that I can continue to be a thorn in the side of bigoted Roman Catholics.  Just kidding of course.  Why would I want to leave the Melkite Church?  It is my spiritual home.
It just seems weird for you to be incommunion with those you would logically have to conclude are heretics...
I do not remember calling you or any Roman Catholic a heretic.  Besides, heresy only applies in connection with the rejection of the truth or the explicit acceptance of something heterodox as dogma, and the Melkite Catholic Church does not believe that the filioque is a dogma, seeing it instead as simply an opinion of many medieval Latin theologians.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 02:38:11 PM
So then, why are you in communion with us?
One reason I remain Eastern Catholic is so that I can continue to be a thorn in the side of bigoted Roman Catholics.  Just kidding of course.  Why would I want to leave the Melkite Church?  It is my spiritual home.
It just seems weird for you to be incommunion with those you would logically have to conclude are heretics...
I do not remember calling you or any Roman Catholic a heretic.  Besides, heresy only applies in connection with the rejection of the truth or the explicit acceptance of something heterodox as dogma, and the Melkite Catholic Church does not believe that the filioque is a dogma, seeing it instead as simply an opinion of many medieval Latin theologians.
Really? Because we Latins have made it pretty clear that we accept it as dogma. I mean, there is the council of Florence, among others, and, for goodness sakes, it's in the Creed we recite at the Liturgy and has been for centuries. The law of prayer is the law of faith you know.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:42:01 PM
So then, why are you in communion with us?
One reason I remain Eastern Catholic is so that I can continue to be a thorn in the side of bigoted Roman Catholics.  Just kidding of course.  Why would I want to leave the Melkite Church?  It is my spiritual home.
It just seems weird for you to be incommunion with those you would logically have to conclude are heretics...
I do not remember calling you or any Roman Catholic a heretic.  Besides, heresy only applies in connection with the rejection of the truth or the explicit acceptance of something heterodox as dogma, and the Melkite Catholic Church does not believe that the filioque is a dogma, seeing it instead as simply an opinion of many medieval Latin theologians.
Really? Because we Latins have made it pretty clear that we accept it as dogma. I mean, there is the council of Florence, among others, and, for goodness sakes, it's in the Creed we recite at the Liturgy and has been for centuries. The law of prayer is the law of faith you know.
That is because you mistakenly believe that the particular synods of the Latin Church, which it held during the second millennium, are ecumenical councils, when in fact they are not.  Those Western councils are simply local in nature, and cannot produce dogmas or any form of binding doctrine.  They are expressions of theological opinion, which - to paraphrase Archbishop Zoghby of blessed memory - cannot bind anyone because of their local nature. 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 02:42:36 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.

How arrogant of you to presume to know what my beliefs are with respect to my Church, or even to think you know what they need to be.  You arrogate to yourself an understanding of the teaching of the papal Church that is absolutely wrong, and yet you presume to tell me that I am not in line with my Churches beliefs.

Well my dear, you may have a few campy followers but that does not give you the right to judge me in ANY way shape or form.

Christ is Risen!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:44:16 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.

How arrogant of you to presume to know what my beliefs are with respect to my Church, or even to think you know what they need to be.  You arrogate to yourself an understanding of the teaching of the papal Church that is absolutely wrong, and yet you presume to tell me that I am not in line with my Churches beliefs.
Pot meet kettle.  That is precisely what you were doing to me, and I see that you do not appreciate it anymore than I did.

Christos Voskrese!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:47:24 PM
Well my dear, you may have a few campy followers but that does not give you the right to judge me in ANY way shape or form.

Christ is Risen!
I have no followers, nor do I want any.  As far as judging you is concerned, I would not presume to judge you personally, because I do not know you from Adam, but I will judge your comments, and when they are offensive or erroneous, I will speak up in opposition to what you have said.

P.S. - When you speak the truth I will defend your comments, but alas we rarely see eye to eye on things.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 02:50:22 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.

How arrogant of you to presume to know what my beliefs are with respect to my Church, or even to think you know what they need to be.  You arrogate to yourself an understanding of the teaching of the papal Church that is absolutely wrong, and yet you presume to tell me that I am not in line with my Churches beliefs.
Pot meet kettle.  That is precisely what you were doing to me, and I see that you do not appreciate it anymore than I did.

Christos Voskrese!

Not at all.  My ONLY complaint with you over the years was that you mis-read the Catholic teaching concerning filioque and broadcast your reading far and wide as the only possible truth,  and claimed you stood on higher ground because you recognized it as heterodox teaching.

I have always defended you here against Papist and hoped that he would stop.

That ends here.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 02:52:07 PM
So then, why are you in communion with us?
One reason I remain Eastern Catholic is so that I can continue to be a thorn in the side of bigoted Roman Catholics.  Just kidding of course.  Why would I want to leave the Melkite Church?  It is my spiritual home.
It just seems weird for you to be incommunion with those you would logically have to conclude are heretics...
I do not remember calling you or any Roman Catholic a heretic.  Besides, heresy only applies in connection with the rejection of the truth or the explicit acceptance of something heterodox as dogma, and the Melkite Catholic Church does not believe that the filioque is a dogma, seeing it instead as simply an opinion of many medieval Latin theologians.
Really? Because we Latins have made it pretty clear that we accept it as dogma. I mean, there is the council of Florence, among others, and, for goodness sakes, it's in the Creed we recite at the Liturgy and has been for centuries. The law of prayer is the law of faith you know.
That is because you mistakenly believe that the particular synods of the Latin Church, which it held during the second millennium, are ecumenical councils, when in fact they are not.  Those Western councils are simply local in nature, and cannot produce dogmas or any form of binding doctrine.  They are expressions of theological opinion, which - to paraphrase Archbishop Zoghby of blessed memory - cannot bind anyone because of their local nature. 
And, yet, we as Latins accept them as dogmatic and binding. So wouldn't that make us heretics in your paradigm?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 02:54:34 PM
Todd,
I, along with all of the Latins that I spend time with, accept and profess that the filioque is dogmatic, and binding, along with the doctrines of purgatory, the immaculate conception, original sin, papal primacy, etc. I believe and profess these things, both in thought, and in the Liturgy. Is the law of prayer not the law of faith?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:55:00 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.

How arrogant of you to presume to know what my beliefs are with respect to my Church, or even to think you know what they need to be.  You arrogate to yourself an understanding of the teaching of the papal Church that is absolutely wrong, and yet you presume to tell me that I am not in line with my Churches beliefs.
Pot meet kettle.  That is precisely what you were doing to me, and I see that you do not appreciate it anymore than I did.

Christos Voskrese!

Not at all.  My ONLY complaint with you over the years was that you mis-read the Catholic teaching concerning filioque and broadcast your reading far and wide as the only possible truth,  and claimed you stood on higher ground because you recognized it as heterodox teaching.

I have always defended you here against Papist and hoped that he would stop.

That ends here.

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 02:55:09 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.

How arrogant of you to presume to know what my beliefs are with respect to my Church, or even to think you know what they need to be.  You arrogate to yourself an understanding of the teaching of the papal Church that is absolutely wrong, and yet you presume to tell me that I am not in line with my Churches beliefs.
Pot meet kettle.  That is precisely what you were doing to me, and I see that you do not appreciate it anymore than I did.

Christos Voskrese!

Not at all.  My ONLY complaint with you over the years was that you mis-read the Catholic teaching concerning filioque and broadcast your reading far and wide as the only possible truth,  and claimed you stood on higher ground because you recognized it as heterodox teaching.

I have always defended you here against Papist and hoped that he would stop.

That ends here.

She has defended you Todd. :)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 02:56:50 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.

How arrogant of you to presume to know what my beliefs are with respect to my Church, or even to think you know what they need to be.  You arrogate to yourself an understanding of the teaching of the papal Church that is absolutely wrong, and yet you presume to tell me that I am not in line with my Churches beliefs.
Pot meet kettle.  That is precisely what you were doing to me, and I see that you do not appreciate it anymore than I did.

Christos Voskrese!

Not at all.  My ONLY complaint with you over the years was that you mis-read the Catholic teaching concerning filioque and broadcast your reading far and wide as the only possible truth,  and claimed you stood on higher ground because you recognized it as heterodox teaching.

I have always defended you here against Papist and hoped that he would stop.

That ends here.

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  
Todd, I think your position is dishonest. You try to explain away Latin doctrines that we hold as dogmatically binding, so that you can remain in communion with Rome. Let me make it clear to you. The Filioque is part recited in the Creed. The Law of prayer is the Law of faith. Therefore, we Latins hold it dogmatically.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:57:08 PM
Todd,
I, along with all of the Latins that I spend time with, accept and profess that the filioque is dogmatic, and binding, along with the doctrines of purgatory, the immaculate conception, original sin, papal primacy, etc. I believe and profess these things, both in thought, and in the Liturgy. Is the law of prayer not the law of faith?
I am sure that you and your friends do just that, but Rome has wavered in recent years both with its "Clarification on the Filioque," and with its agreed statements with Orthodox in the Joint International Commission.  I guess we will just have to wait and see where Rome finally ends up on these issues.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 02:57:59 PM
Todd,
I, along with all of the Latins that I spend time with, accept and profess that the filioque is dogmatic, and binding, along with the doctrines of purgatory, the immaculate conception, original sin, papal primacy, etc. I believe and profess these things, both in thought, and in the Liturgy. Is the law of prayer not the law of faith?
I am sure that you and your friends do just that, but Rome has wavered in recent years both with its "Clarification on the Filioque," and with its agreed statements with Orthodox in the Joint International Commission.  I guess we will just have to wait and see where Rome finally ends up on these issues.
In the mean time, it's in our Creed and the law of prayer is the law of faith.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 02:59:00 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 02:59:05 PM
Quote

 :D :D :D :D

Same reason all other nominally Catholic believers are as long as they don't leave us or try to destroy us internally... :P

Same reason saints and sinners commune from the same Chalice.
>:(


You have a problem communing with sinners?
As a sinner, I have no problem communing with sinners like you either.  Christos Voskrese!

Exactly!...We do not need to be perfect or perfectly in line with our beliefs to be in communion.

Voistinu Voskrese!
Yes, you may not be in line perfectly with your Churches beliefs, but thankfully I am in line with Melkite teaching on the filioque.

How arrogant of you to presume to know what my beliefs are with respect to my Church, or even to think you know what they need to be.  You arrogate to yourself an understanding of the teaching of the papal Church that is absolutely wrong, and yet you presume to tell me that I am not in line with my Churches beliefs.
Pot meet kettle.  That is precisely what you were doing to me, and I see that you do not appreciate it anymore than I did.

Christos Voskrese!

Not at all.  My ONLY complaint with you over the years was that you mis-read the Catholic teaching concerning filioque and broadcast your reading far and wide as the only possible truth,  and claimed you stood on higher ground because you recognized it as heterodox teaching.

I have always defended you here against Papist and hoped that he would stop.

That ends here.

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  
Todd, I think your position is dishonest. You try to explain away Latin doctrines that we hold as dogmatically binding, so that you can remain in communion with Rome. Let me make it clear to you. The Filioque is part recited in the Creed. The Law of prayer is the Law of faith. Therefore, we Latins hold it dogmatically.
I have no doubt that you believe that about me.  But I am being quite honest and faithful to the Melkite Church of which I am a member.  Be that as it may, in regard to your position, I believe that you are being honest, but that you are simply in error.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:00:25 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
My friends and I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.  I have never seen so much twisting.  :D
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 03:00:57 PM
Todd,
I, along with all of the Latins that I spend time with, accept and profess that the filioque is dogmatic, and binding, along with the doctrines of purgatory, the immaculate conception, original sin, papal primacy, etc. I believe and profess these things, both in thought, and in the Liturgy. Is the law of prayer not the law of faith?
I am sure that you and your friends do just that, but Rome has wavered in recent years both with its "Clarification on the Filioque," and with its agreed statements with Orthodox in the Joint International Commission.  I guess we will just have to wait and see where Rome finally ends up on these issues.

You are wrong historically, Todd, and the thing that warms my heart is that in future it will Orthodox scholars who will prove you to be historically wrong for they are the ones coming to grips with that which has been denied for so many centuries in the east.

All in good time, Todd.  All in good time.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:01:18 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
With my friends I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.
That's funny,Todd,  because when I refer to your posts, I always call you the non-Catholic Catholic.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:01:48 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern. 

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
With my friends I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.
That's funny, because when I refer to your posts, I always call you the non-Catholic Catholic.
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 03:02:04 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
My friends and I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.  I have never seen so much twisting.  :D

 :D :D :D :D :D

You never enter my conversations!!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:02:28 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
With my friends I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.
That's funny, because when I refer to your posts, I always call you the non-Catholic Catholic.
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D
No, its because you confuse  Byzantianism/Hellenism with Catholicism.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:03:14 PM
Todd,
I, along with all of the Latins that I spend time with, accept and profess that the filioque is dogmatic, and binding, along with the doctrines of purgatory, the immaculate conception, original sin, papal primacy, etc. I believe and profess these things, both in thought, and in the Liturgy. Is the law of prayer not the law of faith?
I am sure that you and your friends do just that, but Rome has wavered in recent years both with its "Clarification on the Filioque," and with its agreed statements with Orthodox in the Joint International Commission.  I guess we will just have to wait and see where Rome finally ends up on these issues.

You are wrong historically, Todd, and the thing that warms my heart is that in future it will Orthodox scholars who will prove you to be historically wrong for they are the ones coming to grips with that which has been denied for so many centuries in the east.

All in good time, Todd.  All in good time.
Assertions are not proof.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:03:28 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:04:02 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
With my friends I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.
That's funny, because when I refer to your posts, I always call you the non-Catholic Catholic.
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D
No, its because you confuse  Byzantianism/Hellenism with Catholicism.
Byzantine theology is many things, but a form of Hellenism it is not.  Read the Synodikon.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:05:07 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
With my friends I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.
That's funny, because when I refer to your posts, I always call you the non-Catholic Catholic.
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D
No, its because you confuse  Byzantianism/Hellenism with Catholicism.
Byzantine theology is many things, but a form of Hellenism it is not.  Read the Synodikon.
Of course it is. When you take it in it's extreme views (such as those you often present) it isn't far off from Neo-Platonism. I don't think that the Eastern Orthodox go that far, but you do sometimes.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:05:13 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:06:17 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
What does that have to do with har far you go into transforming God in the ultimate zero and changing theosis into Nirvana?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:06:39 PM

And I think that you misread Catholic teaching, and I have thought that for many years.  I find it reprehensible when you twist Catholic teaching in order to try and make it more palatable to the Orthodox.  Perhaps that is why I respect Papist, even when I do not agree with him on certain issues, because he does not try to distort Latin teaching in order to make it look more Eastern.  

I never twist any Catholic teaching to suit anyone.  I've spent many more years than you learning what my Church teaches, and have no need to change it to suit anyone.  Not a soul.  Especially not someone who thinks a degree makes the scholar.
With my friends I have nick-named you cyclone Elijahmaria.
That's funny, because when I refer to your posts, I always call you the non-Catholic Catholic.
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D
No, its because you confuse  Byzantianism/Hellenism with Catholicism.
Byzantine theology is many things, but a form of Hellenism it is not.  Read the Synodikon.
Of course it is. When you take it in it's extreme views (such as those you often present) it isn't far off from Neo-Platonism. I don't think that the Eastern Orthodox go that far, but you do sometimes.
This comment proves that you know very little about Eastern Orthodox theology.  You might want to peruse Dr. John Jones' writings on Pseudo-Dionysios.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:07:41 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
What does that have to do with har far you go into transforming God in the ultimate zero and changing theosis into Nirvana?
The fact that God is beyond being, a belief held by St. Maximos (and St. Gregory Palamas, and others), is not Buddhist my dear friend, it is Christian.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:08:57 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
What does that have to do with har far you go into transforming God in the ultimate zero and changing theosis into Nirvana?
The fact that God is beyond being, a belief held by St. Maximos (and St. Gregory Palamas, and others), is not Buddhist my dear friend, it is Christian.
I didin't say that that teaching was Buddhist. However, your incarnation of that teaching is.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
What does that have to do with har far you go into transforming God in the ultimate zero and changing theosis into Nirvana?
The fact that God is beyond being, a belief held by St. Maximos (and St. Gregory Palamas, and others), is not Buddhist my dear friend, it is Christian.
I didin't say that that teaching was Buddhist. However, your incarnation of that teaching is.
Prove it.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:10:57 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
What does that have to do with har far you go into transforming God in the ultimate zero and changing theosis into Nirvana?
The fact that God is beyond being, a belief held by St. Maximos (and St. Gregory Palamas, and others), is not Buddhist my dear friend, it is Christian.
I didin't say that that teaching was Buddhist. However, your incarnation of that teaching is.
Prove it.
Oh geesh, now I have to dig up our last dialogue, where you didn't even understand term essence, and made ridiculous statements about God transcending God....
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:11:56 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
What does that have to do with har far you go into transforming God in the ultimate zero and changing theosis into Nirvana?
The fact that God is beyond being, a belief held by St. Maximos (and St. Gregory Palamas, and others), is not Buddhist my dear friend, it is Christian.
I didin't say that that teaching was Buddhist. However, your incarnation of that teaching is.
Prove it.
Oh geesh, now I have to dig up our last dialogue, where you didn't even understand term essence, and made ridiculous statements about God transcending God....
I am more than willing to debate you on the issue.  Prove it.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:12:59 PM
However Todd, some of your extereme/nearly-Buddhist views might even be considered too much for the Eastern Orthodox.
That's a new one.  How many of St. Maximos' writings have you read?
What does that have to do with har far you go into transforming God in the ultimate zero and changing theosis into Nirvana?
The fact that God is beyond being, a belief held by St. Maximos (and St. Gregory Palamas, and others), is not Buddhist my dear friend, it is Christian.
I didin't say that that teaching was Buddhist. However, your incarnation of that teaching is.
Prove it.
Oh geesh, now I have to dig up our last dialogue, where you didn't even understand term essence, and made ridiculous statements about God transcending God....
I am more than willing to debate you on the issue.  Prove it.
Ok. When I get home we can go through rabbit hole of your heretical beliefs.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:13:10 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:14:26 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:16:38 PM
I base my views on the transcendence and unknowableness of the divine essence on the writings of the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, and St. Gregory Palamas.  Have you read the "Life of Moses" or the "Homilies on Ecclesiastes" by St. Gregory of Nyssa?  Have you read the "Capita Physica" of St. Gregory Palamas, or any of the "Centuries" by St. Maximos?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:18:53 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings.  And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."

The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:19:35 PM
I base my views on the transcendence and unknowableness of the divine essence on the writings of the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, and St. Gregory Palamas.  Have you read the "Life of Moses" or the "Homilies on Ecclesiastes" by St. Gregory of Nyssa?  Have you read the "Capita Physica" of St. Gregory Palamas, or any of the "Centuries" by St. Maximos?
I have read passages from Palamas and Maximos. No I have not read them as much as you have. That being said, I have read articles on the Fathers regarding the essence/engergies distinction, and I don't think that Palamas teaches what the Fathers do. I think he starts with their view and then runs into a strange and extreme conclusion.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:20:44 PM
I base my views on the transcendence and unknowableness of the divine essence on the writings of the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, and St. Gregory Palamas.  Have you read the "Life of Moses" or the "Homilies on Ecclesiastes" by St. Gregory of Nyssa?  Have you read the "Capita Physica" of St. Gregory Palamas, or any of the "Centuries" by St. Maximos?
I have read passages from Palamas and Maximos. No I have not read them as much as you have. That being said, I have read articles on the Fathers regarding the essence/engergies distinction, and I don't think that Palamas teaches what the Fathers do. I think he starts with their view and then runs into a strange and extreme conclusion.
Great, now try reading their texts as whole books, and not merely excerpts.  No wonder you have a distorted view of their teaching.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:21:24 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings.  And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."

The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
LOL @ the bold part. You should hear yourself.

As for Palamas, he is simply wrong. God can be being in a different way then we are. Latin propose an analogical application of the term. This protects us from making God merely the highest being. But it also protects us from falling into your Buddhist views.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:21:53 PM
I base my views on the transcendence and unknowableness of the divine essence on the writings of the Cappadocians, St. Maximos, and St. Gregory Palamas.  Have you read the "Life of Moses" or the "Homilies on Ecclesiastes" by St. Gregory of Nyssa?  Have you read the "Capita Physica" of St. Gregory Palamas, or any of the "Centuries" by St. Maximos?
I have read passages from Palamas and Maximos. No I have not read them as much as you have. That being said, I have read articles on the Fathers regarding the essence/engergies distinction, and I don't think that Palamas teaches what the Fathers do. I think he starts with their view and then runs into a strange and extreme conclusion.
Back to your problems with St. Gregory Palamas.  Where is Fr. Deacon Lance when I need him?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:23:18 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings.  And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."

The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
LOL @ the bold part. You should hear yourself.

As for Palamas, he is simply wrong. God can be being in a different way then we are. Latin propose an analogical application of the term. This protects us from making God merely the highest being. But it also protects us from falling into your Buddhist views.
Sorry, but I am simply stating a fact.  I have read whole treatises by these Fathers and you have admitted that you have not.  How can you make any intelligent judgment when you are ignorant of what these Fathers have said?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:25:39 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings.  And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."

The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
LOL @ the bold part. You should hear yourself.

As for Palamas, he is simply wrong. God can be being in a different way then we are. Latin propose an analogical application of the term. This protects us from making God merely the highest being. But it also protects us from falling into your Buddhist views.
Sorry, but I am simply stating a fact.  I have read whole treatises by these Fathers and you have admitted that you have not.  How can you make any intelligent judgment when you are ignorant of what these Fathers have said?
Since I have only read some of what they say, then I cannot come to intelligent conclusions? I must read the entire corpus of their works in order to undestand them? Have you read the entire Summa Theologiae, Summa Contra Gentiles, On being and Essence, and all of Aquinas other works? And yet you reject his orthodox thinking? Did you do so unintelligently because you have not read it all? Have you read everything written by St. Augustine?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:25:50 PM
Papist,

Do you believe that you can know another man's essence?  Do you know what St. Basil said about the possibility of knowing the essence of another human being?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:27:00 PM
Papist,

Do you believe that you can know another man's essence?  Do you know what St. Basil said about the possibility of knowing the essence of another human being?
Ok, you trying to set me up, so tell me. What did he say? BTW, Latins don't believe we can comprehend God's essence. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand us.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:28:32 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings.  And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."

The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
LOL @ the bold part. You should hear yourself.

As for Palamas, he is simply wrong. God can be being in a different way then we are. Latin propose an analogical application of the term. This protects us from making God merely the highest being. But it also protects us from falling into your Buddhist views.
Sorry, but I am simply stating a fact.  I have read whole treatises by these Fathers and you have admitted that you have not.  How can you make any intelligent judgment when you are ignorant of what these Fathers have said?
Since I have only read some of what they say, then I cannot come to intelligent conclusions? I must read the entire corpus of their works in order to undestand them? Have you read the entire Summa Theologiae, Summa Contra Gentiles, On being and Essence, and all of Aquinas other works? And yet you reject his orthodox thinking? Did you do so unintelligently because you have not read it all? Have you read everything written by St. Augustine?
If you have only read florilegia, then yes, I would say that you cannot speak about the beliefs of the Eastern Fathers in any kind of coherent fashion.  Just look at the text that Aquinas wrote "Against the Greeks," he has no grasp of their actual teaching, and sadly for him many of his citations are now known to be spurious, which caused his views on the Greek Fathers to be even more distorted than they would have been otherwise.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on April 29, 2011, 03:29:13 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings.  And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."

The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
LOL @ the bold part. You should hear yourself.

As for Palamas, he is simply wrong. God can be being in a different way then we are. Latin propose an analogical application of the term. This protects us from making God merely the highest being. But it also protects us from falling into your Buddhist views.
Sorry, but I am simply stating a fact.  I have read whole treatises by these Fathers and you have admitted that you have not.  How can you make any intelligent judgment when you are ignorant of what these Fathers have said?
Since I have only read some of what they say, then I cannot come to intelligent conclusions? I must read the entire corpus of their works in order to undestand them? Have you read the entire Summa Theologiae, Summa Contra Gentiles, On being and Essence, and all of Aquinas other works? And yet you reject his orthodox thinking? Did you do so unintelligently because you have not read it all? Have you read everything written by St. Augustine?
If you have only read florilegia, then yes, I would say that you cannot speak in about their beliefs in any kind of coherent fashion.  Just look at the text that Aquinas wrote "Against the Greeks," he has no grasp of their actual teaching, and sadly for him many of his citations are now known to be spurious, which caused his views on the Greek Fathers to be even more distorted than they would have been otherwise.
So you have read all of Aquinas works then?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:33:07 PM
Papist,

Do you believe that you can know another man's essence?  Do you know what St. Basil said about the possibility of knowing the essence of another human being?
Ok, you trying to set me up, so tell me. What did he say? BTW, Latins don't believe we can comprehend God's essence. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand us.
Well I am sure you would find his position to be Buddhist.  :D  Because he says it is not possible to know a man's nature.  We can know a man's activities, which reveal who he is, but his nature is not knowable (St. Basil, Letter 235).
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:38:01 PM
where you didn't even understand term essence . . .
Just because I reject the medieval Scholastic view of essence you take that to mean that I am a Buddhist.  That is laughable.
No, because you reject the meaning of the word in general, and becaue you hold Buddhist beliefs.
There is nothing Buddhist in my position, I simply agree with St. Gregory Palamas who said:  ". . . if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings.  And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings."

The problem you have with what I have said in the past may be founded upon the fact that you have not read what I have read, or studied the Eastern Fathers in any depth.
LOL @ the bold part. You should hear yourself.

As for Palamas, he is simply wrong. God can be being in a different way then we are. Latin propose an analogical application of the term. This protects us from making God merely the highest being. But it also protects us from falling into your Buddhist views.
Sorry, but I am simply stating a fact.  I have read whole treatises by these Fathers and you have admitted that you have not.  How can you make any intelligent judgment when you are ignorant of what these Fathers have said?
Since I have only read some of what they say, then I cannot come to intelligent conclusions? I must read the entire corpus of their works in order to undestand them? Have you read the entire Summa Theologiae, Summa Contra Gentiles, On being and Essence, and all of Aquinas other works? And yet you reject his orthodox thinking? Did you do so unintelligently because you have not read it all? Have you read everything written by St. Augustine?
If you have only read florilegia, then yes, I would say that you cannot speak in about their beliefs in any kind of coherent fashion.  Just look at the text that Aquinas wrote "Against the Greeks," he has no grasp of their actual teaching, and sadly for him many of his citations are now known to be spurious, which caused his views on the Greek Fathers to be even more distorted than they would have been otherwise.
So you have read all of Aquinas works then?
I have never said that!  Be that as it may, I have read Parts 1 and 3 of the Summa (and some of the Supplement too), and his text Questiones Disputatae de Veritate, and a couple of his homilies (on Galatians and Ephesians), and Book IV of his Summa Contra Gentiles, and I read all of these things back in the 1980s.   I also read his treatise On Being and Essence in the late 1990s when I was studying philosophy at SFSU, but I admit that I have not looked at any of Aquinas' writings in many years.

P.S. - I also read the section of the Summa (from the first part of the second part) on Law, and probably other sections that I just do not remember at the moment.

P.P.S. - The first time I read anything by Aquinas was when I was around 13 years old, and I found a little green book which contained parts of the sections of the Summa on the incarnation.  I was still Methodist at the time.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
As far as Augustine is concerned, I have read a lot of his texts, because I had to in a class that I took at Franciscan University.  The only text of his that impressed me was his Enarrationes in Psalmos, because I like his identification of Christ and the Church as one mystical man.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 29, 2011, 03:47:41 PM
Wow, I guess I missed a lot in the last two hours.  :o

Anyhow, now that I'm back at my computer I have a question for Papist (well, especially Papist, although others might like to respond as well): What do you think of Fr. Richard Neuhauss, of blessed memory, saying of Catholics and Orthodox that "the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion"?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 29, 2011, 04:41:28 PM
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
I guess the part that confuses me about your choice to be a Melkite Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that, while you continue to be in full communion with Rome, you put no value in the teachings of Rome or the Roman Church in general. If you ignore all the western councils and deny them ecumenical status within the Universal Church, wouldn't being Eastern Orthodox and enjoying full autocephaly be a more honest path for you? I didn't think Catholics (regardless of their rite) were allowed to deny Ecumenical Councils and yet remain in full communion.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 04:47:25 PM
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
I guess the part that confuses me about your choice to be a Melkite Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that, while you continue to be in full communion with Rome, you put no value in the teachings of Rome or the Roman Church in general. If you ignore all the western councils and deny them ecumenical status within the Universal Church, wouldn't being Eastern Orthodox and enjoying full autocephaly be a more honest path for you? I didn't think Catholics (regardless of their rite) were allowed to deny Ecumenical Councils and yet remain in full communion.
I put value on the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Normally Roman Catholics, and I say this as a former Roman Catholic, tend to identify being Catholic with being Latin.  I used to do that, but I was cured of that form of spiritual and theological myopia by becoming Eastern Catholic.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 29, 2011, 04:51:48 PM
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
I guess the part that confuses me about your choice to be a Melkite Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that, while you continue to be in full communion with Rome, you put no value in the teachings of Rome or the Roman Church in general. If you ignore all the western councils and deny them ecumenical status within the Universal Church, wouldn't being Eastern Orthodox and enjoying full autocephaly be a more honest path for you? I didn't think Catholics (regardless of their rite) were allowed to deny Ecumenical Councils and yet remain in full communion.
I put value on the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Normally Roman Catholics, and I say this as a former Roman Catholic, tend to identify being Catholic with being Latin.  I used to do that, but I was cured of that form of spiritual and theological myopia by becoming Eastern Catholic.
So if this is the normal position of Eastern Catholics then what, in the Eastern Catholic view, is the purpose/benefit of being in full communion with Rome rather than just being autocephalous like the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 04:58:21 PM
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
I guess the part that confuses me about your choice to be a Melkite Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that, while you continue to be in full communion with Rome, you put no value in the teachings of Rome or the Roman Church in general. If you ignore all the western councils and deny them ecumenical status within the Universal Church, wouldn't being Eastern Orthodox and enjoying full autocephaly be a more honest path for you? I didn't think Catholics (regardless of their rite) were allowed to deny Ecumenical Councils and yet remain in full communion.
I put value on the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Normally Roman Catholics, and I say this as a former Roman Catholic, tend to identify being Catholic with being Latin.  I used to do that, but I was cured of that form of spiritual and theological myopia by becoming Eastern Catholic.
So if this is the normal position of Eastern Catholics then what, in the Eastern Catholic view, is the purpose/benefit of being in full communion with Rome rather than just being autocephalous like the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
It gives us access to really pretty Churches in Rome.

Why would anyone want to reduce communion between the various Churches to some utilitarian end?

What do I personally get out of being in communion with the local Melkite Church? 

These types of questions seem rather odd to me.   

But I will say this, the goal of the spiritual life is communion with God and with your fellow man, i.e., it is to be in Christ, and nothing more.  It is for me to live a life patterned on His life through grace (theomimesis), and to have Him live His life through me, with me, and in me.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 29, 2011, 05:02:10 PM
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
I guess the part that confuses me about your choice to be a Melkite Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that, while you continue to be in full communion with Rome, you put no value in the teachings of Rome or the Roman Church in general. If you ignore all the western councils and deny them ecumenical status within the Universal Church, wouldn't being Eastern Orthodox and enjoying full autocephaly be a more honest path for you? I didn't think Catholics (regardless of their rite) were allowed to deny Ecumenical Councils and yet remain in full communion.
I put value on the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Normally Roman Catholics, and I say this as a former Roman Catholic, tend to identify being Catholic with being Latin.  I used to do that, but I was cured of that form of spiritual and theological myopia by becoming Eastern Catholic.
So if this is the normal position of Eastern Catholics then what, in the Eastern Catholic view, is the purpose/benefit of being in full communion with Rome rather than just being autocephalous like the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
It gives us access to really pretty Churches in Rome.

Why would anyone want to reduce communion between the various Churches to some utilitarian end?

What do I personally get out of being in communion with the local Melkite Church? 

These types of questions seem rather odd to me.   

But I will say this, the goal of the spiritual life is communion with God and with your fellow man, i.e., it is to be in Christ, and nothing more.  It is to live His life, and to have Him live His life through me.

I guess I get what you are saying, it's just that your theological views sound more in line with Eastern Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism, but then again I never knew that the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to outright reject Ecumenical Councils or are free to consider councils local that the Latin Church considers Ecumenical. Are you also free to reject Latin dogmas and Papal ex cathedra pronouncements without a loss of communion with Rome?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 05:03:37 PM
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
I guess the part that confuses me about your choice to be a Melkite Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that, while you continue to be in full communion with Rome, you put no value in the teachings of Rome or the Roman Church in general. If you ignore all the western councils and deny them ecumenical status within the Universal Church, wouldn't being Eastern Orthodox and enjoying full autocephaly be a more honest path for you? I didn't think Catholics (regardless of their rite) were allowed to deny Ecumenical Councils and yet remain in full communion.
I put value on the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Normally Roman Catholics, and I say this as a former Roman Catholic, tend to identify being Catholic with being Latin.  I used to do that, but I was cured of that form of spiritual and theological myopia by becoming Eastern Catholic.
So if this is the normal position of Eastern Catholics then what, in the Eastern Catholic view, is the purpose/benefit of being in full communion with Rome rather than just being autocephalous like the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
It gives us access to really pretty Churches in Rome.

Why would anyone want to reduce communion between the various Churches to some utilitarian end?

What do I personally get out of being in communion with the local Melkite Church? 

These types of questions seem rather odd to me.   

But I will say this, the goal of the spiritual life is communion with God and with your fellow man, i.e., it is to be in Christ, and nothing more.  It is to live His life, and to have Him live His life through me.

I guess I get what you are saying, it's just that your theological views sound more in line with Eastern Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism, but then again I never knew that the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to outright reject Ecumenical Councils or are free to consider councils local that the Latin Church considers Ecumenical. Are you also free to reject Latin dogmas and Papal ex cathedra pronouncements without a loss of communion with Rome?
What Roman Catholics need to recognize is that Eastern Orthodoxy is Catholic too.  Catholicism is bigger than the Latin Church's tradition.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Apotheoun on April 29, 2011, 05:06:45 PM
Are you also free to reject Latin dogmas and Papal ex cathedra pronouncements without a loss of communion with Rome?
I am not Latin, so I do not believe in "Latin" dogmas.  Anything that is peculiar to the Latin Church is merely theologoumena.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on April 29, 2011, 05:31:39 PM
Christus resurrexit!
Wow, I guess I missed a lot in the last two hours.  :o

Anyhow, now that I'm back at my computer I have a question for Papist (well, especially Papist, although others might like to respond as well): What do you think of Fr. Richard Neuhauss, of blessed memory, saying of Catholics and Orthodox that "the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion"?
With the Vatican?
(http://www.bilerico.com/2010/06/hear-see-speak-no-evil1.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 29, 2011, 06:04:19 PM
I know, but that is because you confuse being Latin with being Catholic.  :D  It is time for you to come to terms with the fact that the Catholic Church is composed of 23 self-governing Churches, all with their own theology, spirituality, and liturgy.
I guess the part that confuses me about your choice to be a Melkite Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that, while you continue to be in full communion with Rome, you put no value in the teachings of Rome or the Roman Church in general. If you ignore all the western councils and deny them ecumenical status within the Universal Church, wouldn't being Eastern Orthodox and enjoying full autocephaly be a more honest path for you? I didn't think Catholics (regardless of their rite) were allowed to deny Ecumenical Councils and yet remain in full communion.
I put value on the teachings of the Melkite Catholic Church.  Normally Roman Catholics, and I say this as a former Roman Catholic, tend to identify being Catholic with being Latin.  I used to do that, but I was cured of that form of spiritual and theological myopia by becoming Eastern Catholic.
So if this is the normal position of Eastern Catholics then what, in the Eastern Catholic view, is the purpose/benefit of being in full communion with Rome rather than just being autocephalous like the Eastern Orthodox Churches?
It gives us access to really pretty Churches in Rome.

Why would anyone want to reduce communion between the various Churches to some utilitarian end?

What do I personally get out of being in communion with the local Melkite Church? 

These types of questions seem rather odd to me.   

But I will say this, the goal of the spiritual life is communion with God and with your fellow man, i.e., it is to be in Christ, and nothing more.  It is to live His life, and to have Him live His life through me.

I guess I get what you are saying, it's just that your theological views sound more in line with Eastern Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism, but then again I never knew that the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to outright reject Ecumenical Councils or are free to consider councils local that the Latin Church considers Ecumenical. Are you also free to reject Latin dogmas and Papal ex cathedra pronouncements without a loss of communion with Rome?

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Paying particular attention to Title 1

However when you take Title 1 in concert with the various documents on local catechisms there is a great deal of leeway for a particular Church to catechize their children and adults in their own unique traditions.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 29, 2011, 06:09:20 PM
With the Vatican?

Anyhow, now that I'm back at my computer I have a question for Papist (well, especially Papist, although others might like to respond as well): What do you think of Fr. Richard Neuhauss, of blessed memory, saying of Catholics and Orthodox that "the only thing lacking for full communion is full communion"?
(emphasis added)

See: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/zneubene.htm
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Sleeper on April 29, 2011, 07:09:46 PM
Todd,
I, along with all of the Latins that I spend time with, accept and profess that the filioque is dogmatic, and binding, along with the doctrines of purgatory, the immaculate conception, original sin, papal primacy, etc. I believe and profess these things, both in thought, and in the Liturgy. Is the law of prayer not the law of faith?
I am sure that you and your friends do just that, but Rome has wavered in recent years both with its "Clarification on the Filioque," and with its agreed statements with Orthodox in the Joint International Commission.  I guess we will just have to wait and see where Rome finally ends up on these issues.
In the mean time, it's in our Creed and the law of prayer is the law of faith.

Out of curiosity and by no means intended to be snarky: when the filioque wasn't part of the Latin creed, did this rule not apply?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on April 29, 2011, 08:28:29 PM
Are you also free to reject Latin dogmas and Papal ex cathedra pronouncements without a loss of communion with Rome?

I don't know the precise canons, but my understanding is that Catholic canon law is such that the pope can excommunicate anyone who rejects such things (e.g. the Immaculate Conception), but not that he is obliged to do so.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 29, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
Are you also free to reject Latin dogmas and Papal ex cathedra pronouncements without a loss of communion with Rome?
I am not Latin, so I do not believe in "Latin" dogmas.  Anything that is peculiar to the Latin Church is merely theologoumena.
I thought full communion with Rome required full adherence to our dogma. If something is a dogma that means it is true, so it's not as if Mary is only the Immaculate Conception in the Western Church, either she is the Immaculate Conception or she is not.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 29, 2011, 10:40:03 PM
Shoo, who needs Orthodox to argue with the Latins about the heresy of the filioque when they can argue amongst themselves!  ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 29, 2011, 11:45:55 PM
Shoo, who needs Orthodox to argue with the Latins about the heresy of the filioque when they can argue amongst themselves!  ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Well, Apotheoun is not Latin. Here I thought Catholic was Catholic and that the Eastern Catholic Churches used different rites but essentially had the same faith. Yet, it seems more and more that we do not have the same faith. What I am wondering, though, is if Apotheoun's beliefs are common amongst Eastern Catholics or if the things which he has said are specifically just his personal beliefs.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on April 30, 2011, 12:16:33 AM
Shoo, who needs Orthodox to argue with the Latins about the heresy of the filioque when they can argue amongst themselves!  ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Well, Apotheoun is not Latin. Here I thought Catholic was Catholic and that the Eastern Catholic Churches used different rites but essentially had the same faith. Yet, it seems more and more that we do not have the same faith.
Well, having "essentially the same faith" and having "the same faith" are two different things.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 30, 2011, 12:20:36 AM
Shoo, who needs Orthodox to argue with the Latins about the heresy of the filioque when they can argue amongst themselves!  ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Well, Apotheoun is not Latin. Here I thought Catholic was Catholic and that the Eastern Catholic Churches used different rites but essentially had the same faith. Yet, it seems more and more that we do not have the same faith.
Well, having "essentially the same faith" and having "the same faith" are two different things.
By essentially I meant I figured we had different terminology and such (confirmation vs. chrismation, etc.) but I didn't think they could outright reject our doctrine and still be in good standing with Rome.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Jetavan on April 30, 2011, 12:39:33 AM
Shoo, who needs Orthodox to argue with the Latins about the heresy of the filioque when they can argue amongst themselves!  ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Well, Apotheoun is not Latin. Here I thought Catholic was Catholic and that the Eastern Catholic Churches used different rites but essentially had the same faith. Yet, it seems more and more that we do not have the same faith.
Well, having "essentially the same faith" and having "the same faith" are two different things.
By essentially I meant I figured we had different terminology and such (confirmation vs. chrismation, etc.) but I didn't think they could outright reject our doctrine and still be in good standing with Rome.
Holding an idea as a theologumen is hardly an outright rejection of that idea.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 30, 2011, 08:18:15 AM
Shoo, who needs Orthodox to argue with the Latins about the heresy of the filioque when they can argue amongst themselves!  ;)

In Christ,
Andrew
Well, Apotheoun is not Latin. Here I thought Catholic was Catholic and that the Eastern Catholic Churches used different rites but essentially had the same faith. Yet, it seems more and more that we do not have the same faith.
Well, having "essentially the same faith" and having "the same faith" are two different things.
By essentially I meant I figured we had different terminology and such (confirmation vs. chrismation, etc.) but I didn't think they could outright reject our doctrine and still be in good standing with Rome.

You really do need to go and read this link I offered earlier, now listed below,  and then find the teachings on catechesis.  You are pushing a very big rock uphill here. 

What you legitimately CAN resist is a corruption of the teaching of the universal Church.  But you cannot expect a teaching to be "forced" upon a particular Church if that teaching is no a part of their ancient traditions.  IF there are members of a particular Church who choose to accept a teaching of the universal Church then it is wrong for members of any of the particular Churches to gainsay them.  If their hierarchs catechize a teaching such as the Immaculate Conception then they have the right to do that precisely because it is the truth, and nobody can speak against them for doing so as long as it is understood by all that it is a shift and change in their tradition.

No eastern Catholic is obliged to sound like Todd.  One would need to choose to do that.  He is not in a majority in his perspectives.  Not even among the Melkites.  Not every Melkites corrupts the teaching of the universal Church, nor do they present them publicly as heterodox teaching.  Some Melkites are actually quite lovely people and though they do not catechize their children the way that you might, they do not attack the universal Church for her teachings.

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Paying particular attention to Title 1

However when you take Title 1 in concert with the various documents on local catechisms there is a great deal of leeway for a particular Church to catechize their children and adults in their own unique traditions.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Melodist on April 30, 2011, 08:49:37 AM
Well, Apotheoun is not Latin. Here I thought Catholic was Catholic and that the Eastern Catholic Churches used different rites but essentially had the same faith. Yet, it seems more and more that we do not have the same faith. What I am wondering, though, is if Apotheoun's beliefs are common amongst Eastern Catholics or if the things which he has said are specifically just his personal beliefs.

Just an observation.

It seems to me that there is a variation in Eastern Catholicism ranging everywhere from being "Latin Catholics (strict adherance to post schism western dogma) worshipping according to eastern liturgical tradition" on one end and "Orthodox in Communion with Rome (refusal to accept or et the very least integrate into teaching non-Orthodox dogma)" on the other end. I'm guessing (really just a guess please correct me if I'm wrong, kind of curious about this one) that most Eastern Catholics fall somewhere in between those two extremes.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 30, 2011, 09:37:57 AM
Well, Apotheoun is not Latin. Here I thought Catholic was Catholic and that the Eastern Catholic Churches used different rites but essentially had the same faith. Yet, it seems more and more that we do not have the same faith. What I am wondering, though, is if Apotheoun's beliefs are common amongst Eastern Catholics or if the things which he has said are specifically just his personal beliefs.

Just an observation.

It seems to me that there is a variation in Eastern Catholicism ranging everywhere from being "Latin Catholics (strict adherance to post schism western dogma) worshipping according to eastern liturgical tradition" on one end and "Orthodox in Communion with Rome (refusal to accept or et the very least integrate into teaching non-Orthodox dogma)" on the other end. I'm guessing (really just a guess please correct me if I'm wrong, kind of curious about this one) that most Eastern Catholics fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

To be honest I don't even think most of them are even on that continuum.  There are other considerations that take precedence...In the layers of things to be concerned about in Church, doctrine, outside of the liturgy, is way back on the list.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ICXCNIKA on April 30, 2011, 11:22:44 AM
Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 30, 2011, 12:18:18 PM
It would seem according to this that Apotheoun is not following the beliefs of the Melkite Church:



Relationship between Melkites and the Pope:  What is the relationship between our Bishops and the Pope? Are we obliged to accept dogmas like "The Immaculate Conception as it is defined by Rome?  Why are there differences in the way the Pope is commemorated between the various Eastern rites?

Bishop John's Answer:  God bless your eagerness to see clearly and concisely points that require volumes to elucidate and that have been object of controversy among many people of good will for too many years.

The truth is one, although interpreted in different ways, depending on where you stand. However, the same object could not be white for you and black for me, and we still pretend that we are both right. East and West see reality under  different angles sometimes, in complicated manners hard to explain here in short terms. Some people enjoy finding differences, and other (as I try to do as often as I can) focus on what unites us rather than on what separates us. In all cases, if we are Catholic, then we have to accept all Catholic dogmas.

You are right to think that " we are one of many Eastern autonomous Churches (self-governing) as the Ukrainians, the Ruthenians and other self-governing (sui juris) Eastern Catholic Churches. We hold that the Pope of Rome is infallible in important matters of faith and morality, when he speaks "ex cathedra", in his position as the visible head of the Catholic Church. We may interpret these dogmas in "Eastern" terms; however, we are not allowed to deny their truth without breaking the bond of unity with the Pope of Rome, the successor of St. Peter the Rock.

You are right also that we commemorate the Pope of Rome only once, namely at the end of the Anaphora. However, the exact mandated translation is "FIRST, Lord, remember His Holiness N. Pope of Rome, His Beatitude … etc."  Regardless of linguistic or historic pretexts,  "Among the first" translation has been repeatedly prohibited by me, as Melkite Eparch, and by my predecessors. I consider persisting in using "among the first…" in our Melkite churches in America as an open defiance to legitimate authority.

I wish you continued success in your endeavors. May our Lord direct your thoughts and words to His pleasure in truth and love.


http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm (http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 30, 2011, 12:26:28 PM
Here is some more info regarding the Melkite view on the post-schism western councils:



View of the Post-Schism Councils: Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

Bishop John's Answer: Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. It would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.


http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm (http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on April 30, 2011, 01:31:36 PM
Council of Trent: "What is the Melkite view vis-à-vis the Council of Trent and other such councils that the East was not represented at, and that reflect a specifically western vision of the church? Are we bound by them?

Bishop John's Answer: Although the Council of Trent was convened in order to meet the challenges of the Reformation in the west, the recapitulation of dogma concerning the sacraments that came from the Council has been an enriching source for the Churches of both east and west. Indeed, you will note that many Eastern theologians have reacted in various ways to the decrees of the Council of Trent. As Catholics, we are bound to all of the decrees of the councils that have been promulgated by the Holy Father. In some instances, the decrees of the Council have direct application to the discipline of the west only. Usually this can be discerned either by the decree itself or by its logical application to the discipline of the west.



http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm (http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on April 30, 2011, 01:32:57 PM
Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.

In addition to what Wyatt has presented above, you would have to show us where these bishops have encouraged the faithful to believe or publicly promote the idea that any of the doctrine or dogma of the west are heresy or heterodox.  A brief scan of this forum and another forum where Todd spends a good bit of time will demonstrate that Todd does far more public damage to Catholic teaching that any of those bishops intended.

So...I think his critics all have quite valid points.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on May 01, 2011, 10:39:14 PM
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on May 01, 2011, 10:52:23 PM
almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on May 02, 2011, 04:00:36 PM
Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on May 02, 2011, 04:29:42 PM
almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Which is?

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians. They are to a degree since they have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but he, like them, are not in full communion with us. The fact that he technically belongs to a Church that is canonically part of the Catholic Church does not mean he is in full communion when he believes as he does. You cannot just pick al a carte what doctrine/dogmas you want to believe in and still be in full communion with the Church. When we make a profession of faith before being confirmed, we profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims. That is something that needs to be taken very seriously.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on May 02, 2011, 06:21:08 PM
almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Which is?

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians. They are to a degree since they have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but he, like them, are not in full communion with us. The fact that he technically belongs to a Church that is canonically part of the Catholic Church does not mean he is in full communion when he believes as he does. You cannot just pick al a carte what doctrine/dogmas you want to believe in and still be in full communion with the Church. When we make a profession of faith before being confirmed, we profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims. That is something that needs to be taken very seriously.
Agreed. This is why I am a bit more lenient with our Orthodox brothers and sisters... They are not in full communion, whereas, Eastern Catholics are. To whom much has been given, much is expected.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on May 02, 2011, 06:31:06 PM

I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians. They are to a degree since they have Apostolic Succession and Sacraments, but he, like them, are not in full communion with us. The fact that he technically belongs to a Church that is canonically part of the Catholic Church does not mean he is in full communion when he believes as he does. You cannot just pick al a carte what doctrine/dogmas you want to believe in and still be in full communion with the Church. When we make a profession of faith before being confirmed, we profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and proclaims. That is something that needs to be taken very seriously.

I think if we split the differences here Wyatt, you'd find that the Eastern Catholic Churches have more leeway than you realize.  The cutting edge is where you call the teachings of the last thousand years by the name of heterodox or heresy.  Todd falls off that edge.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on May 02, 2011, 06:33:51 PM
delete
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on May 02, 2011, 06:47:20 PM
almasiiH qaam!
Is Apotheoun afraid to speak now that the true beliefs of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church have been made known?
LOL. I sincerely doubt it. I know what they say in Antioch.
Which is?
Much the same that Apotheum says, which is why the Melkites are among the biggest headaches for the Vatican.  The Melkites, for instance, haven't waited for the Vatican to approve of the ordination of married men in America.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on May 02, 2011, 06:51:59 PM
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on May 02, 2011, 07:04:52 PM
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Wyatt on May 02, 2011, 11:10:13 PM
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
It is just not true. I used to think this way because, overall, we seem to be a lot more accepting and willing to unify with the Eastern Orthodox, but as a whole they have many, many problems with us. As Papist said, as long as they remain so anti-Latin and object to everything in the West simply because it is Western there will be no union.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Shlomlokh on May 02, 2011, 11:31:31 PM
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.
Do you think is this reality or perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to some of us less-than-tactful-and-charitable Orthodox? I know of very, very few Orthodox who actually think anything Latin is evil and I would consider the majority of the tiny number to be on this website. I think it's terribly silly to paint such broad strokes with that brush there.

Yes, the Latins have their problems, that's no surprise. I also don't think it's healthy for any of us to gloat over them. Sadly, the tone of postings around here and the rising emotions do not lend to Christian charity for either side (I am guilty of such). Personally, I try to take a different tact when discussing issues with the Latins that I had when I was one. There is much I disagree with the Latin church over a wide range of issues, but I do not hate the Latins or anything Latin. I have a great respect for the Latin church's venerable past and pray for her daily. I sincerely apologize if I ever gave off an impression of "anti-Latinism." As much as I love and desire for them to convert to Orthodoxy (it doesn't matter if it's Eastern or Western), part of me would love to see them be able to reform their church to how it was before the Schism. Perhaps, that is the work Western Orthodoxy is trying to achieve, albeit in a different manner.

Likewise, we Orthodox have our issues to deal with as well. It does neither of us any benefit to our souls or hearts when we engage in these wide-sweeping generalizations of who does what or who thinks this about that person or group. I believe that both (churches) of us have problems in each house that needs a lot of work, much of which is interior in each one of us as well as the other big doctrinal, spiritual, et al. issues that separate us. It saddens me how in my own postings it has been easy for me to devolve into polemics or excessive zeal without possessing that Christian love and hope that passes all understanding. Maybe we can shut the laptop or walk away from the computer when we feel the passions welling up inside us to shoot back with a remark. With God's grace, I will strive to start. I pray others may follow. :)

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 12:58:33 AM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 01:28:39 AM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
I have always understood this proceeding from both as from one to mean what St. John of Damascus means by the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Asteriktos on May 03, 2011, 01:33:56 AM
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

I don't know about St. John, but fwiw this article (http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti-patristic-stance-old-calendarist-zealots.aspx) says that: "in 1136 and 1234, conciliatory solutions were suggested by the Orthodox, such as the phrase 'the spirit proceeds from the father through the son'"... I wonder how common such suggestions were, or if this was a rare aberration...
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: biro on May 03, 2011, 06:11:25 AM
Quote from: Shlomlokh

Likewise, we Orthodox have our issues to deal with as well. It does neither of us any benefit to our souls or hearts when we engage in these wide-sweeping generalizations of who does what or who thinks this about that person or group. I believe that both (churches) of us have problems in each house that needs a lot of work, much of which is interior in each one of us as well as the other big doctrinal, spiritual, et al. issues that separate us. It saddens me how in my own postings it has been easy for me to devolve into polemics or excessive zeal without possessing that Christian love and hope that passes all understanding. Maybe we can shut the laptop or walk away from the computer when we feel the passions welling up inside us to shoot back with a remark. With God's grace, I will strive to start. I pray others may follow. :)

In Christ,
Andrew


Well said.  :)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on May 03, 2011, 10:20:36 AM
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.
Do you think is this reality or perhaps you are having an emotional reaction to some of us less-than-tactful-and-charitable Orthodox? I know of very, very few Orthodox who actually think anything Latin is evil and I would consider the majority of the tiny number to be on this website. I think it's terribly silly to paint such broad strokes with that brush there.

Yes, the Latins have their problems, that's no surprise. I also don't think it's healthy for any of us to gloat over them. Sadly, the tone of postings around here and the rising emotions do not lend to Christian charity for either side (I am guilty of such). Personally, I try to take a different tact when discussing issues with the Latins that I had when I was one. There is much I disagree with the Latin church over a wide range of issues, but I do not hate the Latins or anything Latin. I have a great respect for the Latin church's venerable past and pray for her daily. I sincerely apologize if I ever gave off an impression of "anti-Latinism." As much as I love and desire for them to convert to Orthodoxy (it doesn't matter if it's Eastern or Western), part of me would love to see them be able to reform their church to how it was before the Schism. Perhaps, that is the work Western Orthodoxy is trying to achieve, albeit in a different manner.

Likewise, we Orthodox have our issues to deal with as well. It does neither of us any benefit to our souls or hearts when we engage in these wide-sweeping generalizations of who does what or who thinks this about that person or group. I believe that both (churches) of us have problems in each house that needs a lot of work, much of which is interior in each one of us as well as the other big doctrinal, spiritual, et al. issues that separate us. It saddens me how in my own postings it has been easy for me to devolve into polemics or excessive zeal without possessing that Christian love and hope that passes all understanding. Maybe we can shut the laptop or walk away from the computer when we feel the passions welling up inside us to shoot back with a remark. With God's grace, I will strive to start. I pray others may follow. :)

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

I never expected to hear this from you.  Truly, and I don't say that in any manner of mean spiritedness.  I had simply come to expect your ordinary manner of speaking here and had started pretty much skipping your posts on Orthodox-Catholic topics.  Other things no, but these topics yes. 

Now to hear you say these words...I just got tears in my eyes.  Thank you!!

Mary
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on May 03, 2011, 10:25:19 AM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on May 03, 2011, 10:43:18 AM
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.

Oh that's alright. (Actually, I believe I've asked you that question, or a similar one, on a prior occasion.)

I quite agree with you that "we are bit further off than that".
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on May 03, 2011, 10:48:15 AM
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).

Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on May 03, 2011, 10:48:55 AM
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

I don't know about St. John, but fwiw this article (http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti-patristic-stance-old-calendarist-zealots.aspx) says that: "in 1136 and 1234, conciliatory solutions were suggested by the Orthodox, such as the phrase 'the spirit proceeds from the father through the son'"... I wonder how common such suggestions were, or if this was a rare aberration...
I think that that would have been the best solution.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Peter J on May 03, 2011, 10:50:32 AM
I consider him as much of a coreligionist as I do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Wyatt, what is your opinion regarding Fr. Neuhaus' idea that "the only thing lacking for full communion (between Catholics and Orthodox) is full communion"?
It is just not true. I used to think this way because, overall, we seem to be a lot more accepting and willing to unify with the Eastern Orthodox, but as a whole they have many, many problems with us. As Papist said, as long as they remain so anti-Latin and object to everything in the West simply because it is Western there will be no union.

Yes, I think there's certain amount of anti-Western bias on this forum. (I say anti-Western, and not just anti-Latin, because it seems like it is at least as much against Anglicans and Protestants as against Latin Catholics -- although it's a little hard to judge because most of the thread I read have very few posts from Protestants.)

As far as Fr. Neuhaus' idea goes, I think it's safe to say that most of the Orthodox posters -- in addition to you, me, and Chris -- would disagree with it.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on May 03, 2011, 12:05:25 PM
Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Papist on May 03, 2011, 12:10:30 PM
Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Melodist on May 03, 2011, 02:15:27 PM
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

Quote from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.xii.html
And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation. Wherefore the Holy Spirit is the perfecter of the creation of the universe. All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Melodist on May 03, 2011, 02:17:32 PM
I know you didn't ask me, but I think we are bit further off than that. The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra, and we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.

I don't think this would solve everything, but it would be a huge step and bring us much closer together.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 02:26:15 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: Melodist on May 03, 2011, 02:28:02 PM
Somewhere, I remember saying that St John taught that the greek and latin expressions were complementary in theological writings. I was wrong, it was St Maximus (http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/185-maximus-to-marinus).

Quote
With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

...

In accordance with your request I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them (the 'also from the Son') in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided. But since the practice of writing and sending [the synodal letters] has been observed, I wonder whether they will possibly agree to doing this. It is true, of course, that they cannot reproduce their idea in a language and in words that are foreign to them as they can in their mother-tongue, just as we too cannot do.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on May 03, 2011, 02:51:27 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on May 03, 2011, 03:33:41 PM
A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

And in this thread, it seems to me that the RCs, for the most part, have been the more accommodating and willing to compromise, as it were, than the EOs here.

IIRC, even Papist would be for the removal of the filioque with the caveat that understanding of it within RC theology be allowed to remain, if it were to help bring the RC and OC closer together.

In terms of division, I just don't see the filioque being a strong reason, especially at the grass roots level, for the division between the Churches today. Papal authority much so.

If in the letter of this thread, the EOs might have the upper hand, it seems to me that the RCs have demonstrated a greater degree of charity and willingness to compromise.



 
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on May 03, 2011, 03:41:55 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

If EOs and RCs have come to develop a more generous understanding of the differences of the past, is that a bad thing?

If EM is offering a RC view of the difference which makes reconciliation more likely, why is that a problem? The Church has developed over time in understanding of many things. If RCs and EOs have come to a better understanding of each other's point of view, which could eliminate this divisive subject, I just don't see the problem.

   
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on May 03, 2011, 03:43:41 PM
Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.
Of course, because the Fathers at the Second Ecumenical Council-who were not in communion with Rome at the time-only spoke Latin. ::)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on May 03, 2011, 03:56:22 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?
   

The truth is most important.  There has been no change in the formal teachings of the Church on filioque.  In fact the language has not even developed over time.  So what point would there be to yielding because someone says on a discussion forum that the teaching has changed?

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on May 03, 2011, 04:04:39 PM
Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#264):

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

Yes, it is heretical.

No, the condemned idea has never been one of a dual spiration in the way you are thinking. It's always been the idea that the Son is involved in the causation of the Spirit. And "from both as from one principle" still fits that bill.

This is wrong.  I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father, the Son and Father originate from the Father.

There are other forms of causation that are not originate causation.

There's a name for what you are doing but I am trying very hard not to use it.

You are wrong!!

Mary, I don't care about your church's revisionist interpretation of its historic dogma on the filioque any more than I care about the Byzantines' revisionist interpretation of their two natures dogma at Chalcedon. What a church says was the nature of their historic dogma is not necessarily true.

There is no revision.  That's fact.  You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?
   

The truth is most important.  There has been no change in the formal teachings of the Church on filioque.  In fact the language has not even developed over time.  So what point would there be to yielding because someone says on a discussion forum that the teaching has changed?

M.

Well, the post was more directed at deusveritasest, but . . .

If you and I disagree on something past, and after discussing it we realize that perhaps we are more in agreement than we thought or never in disagreement, does it make sense to end the discussion and say well, we might be in agree now, but forget it cause we didn't understand each other before.

Weird.

I guess you can say "Truth is Truth", but then an EO can say well then why the addition of the filioque to begin with, if you agree the Creed is Truth without it, and thus we begin all over again.

Guess I am tired of watching RC and EO back-and-forths over stuff which probably few outside very small circles care much about.

Guess, with this subject, I've had my fill, OK?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on May 03, 2011, 04:16:18 PM

I guess you can say "Truth is Truth", but then an EO can say well then why the addition of the filioque to begin with, if you agree the Creed is Truth without it, and thus we begin all over again.

Guess I am tired of watching RC and EO back-and-forths over stuff which probably few outside very small circles care much about.

Guess, with this subject, I've had my fill, OK?

Yup!! Got it now.  Sorry for being dense...

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: biro on May 03, 2011, 05:49:49 PM
A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

It would seem to be; let's remember that the formal Schism didn't come about until 1054, although ultra-purists may insist on something else- but 1054 is the date on which most historians agree; and yet that was hundreds of years after the appearance of the actual clause. There was not a one day-one year-one step jump from the filioque to *kaboom* the Schism. It wasn't an all-of-a-sudden thing. We hardly ever hear people mention that, but there it is: the final split actually took a long time.

This whole thing reminds me of the confusion over the Council of Chalcedon and the language used there. It took a long time, but the EO and OO seemed to figure out that their actual beliefs were not very different, rather that the language of certain decisions had caused confusion and complication. Today, we have heard many times that the two groups are not far from drafting some sort of declaration which clears up the issue and corrects the division. That will allow them to be in full communion again.

I don't think there are too many things that can 'never' be solved. What would you do if you actually got what you wanted? What would anyone say if they got up one morning and saw a headline that read, "RCC amends Creed..." and it's bye-bye filioque? I'm not sure that alone is enough for full communion, but it would be a big step. It would be *something.*

I hope it's not a case of people on both sides being so ticked off forever, that they are determined to hold onto some kind of conflict for its own sake; or that they like to be separated because it gives 'em something to feel bad about. It'd be even more of a shame if this business carried on for *another* 950 years.  :'(

Christ made one church. Not two, not 30,000, one. It seems sometimes that people want to ignore each other, instead of trying to heal the body of Christ. Let's just pretend such-and-such people have fallen off the face of the Earth, instead of calling a council and fixing what needs to be fixed. If you don't think your side is the one that needs fixing, then you should at the very least want to bring your former brethren back into the fold. Christians should want to bring people to Christ.

We can sit here and call each other heretics forever. Everyone, again, is forgetting that the excommunications of 1054 of both churches against each other were rescinded in 1965.

Yep. Game's over. I'm sorry for those of you who still want to scrap it out.  ::)

Yes, there is a long way to go. But why is it so bad to want to go?  ???
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 06:01:16 PM
I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.

If EOs and RCs have come to develop a more generous understanding of the differences of the past, is that a bad thing?

If that had actually happened, things would be different. As it is, it still appears to me that the Orthodox position is that "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle" is heretical and thus must be abandoned for reunion to be accomplished.

If EM is offering a RC view of the difference which makes reconciliation more likely, why is that a problem?

It doesn't make reconciliation more likely if the Church's position on the actual, original meaning of the formulation remains the same.

The Church has developed over time in understanding of many things. If RCs and EOs have come to a better understanding of each other's point of view, which could eliminate this divisive subject, I just don't see the problem.

If the RC have an Orthodox interpretation of this, then that is fine and they should be able to retain that. I don't find Mary's interpretation of the filioque to be heretical, and I wouldn't have a problem with that doctrine being expressed within the Orthodox Church. However, so long as judgment of the nature of Florence's doctrine remains distinct, and as long as the RCs continue to insist that they be allowed to confess Florence, then reunion cannot happen.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 06:02:51 PM
The truth is most important.  There has been no change in the formal teachings of the Church on filioque.  In fact the language has not even developed over time.  So what point would there be to yielding because someone says on a discussion forum that the teaching has changed?

Mary, I did not suggest that the teaching of the Roman church has changed. I only said that I think that your teaching on the filioque is different from that of your historical church. For all I know it has not changed and your teaching is different even from your church as it is now.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: elijahmaria on May 03, 2011, 06:10:03 PM
I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.


Frankly my Church teaches what was taught at Florence today.  The difficulty is that it was misunderstood then and it is misunderstood now.

Who the dickens are you to gainsay that?...

M.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on May 03, 2011, 06:11:47 PM

We can sit here and call each other heretics forever. Everyone, again, is forgetting that the excommunications of 1054 of both churches against each other were rescinded in 1965.

I am probably being lazy here, but could you say more about this or provide a link. Not famliar with this at all.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: biro on May 03, 2011, 06:15:19 PM
Here you go:

"July 16 – Cardinal Humbertus, a representative of Pope Leo IX, and Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, decree each other's excommunication. Most historians look to this act as the final step in the initiation of the Great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian Churches. In 1965, those excommunications are rescinded by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras when they meet in the Second Vatican Council. However, to this day each church claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and each denies the other's right to that name. (See East-West Schism)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1054


(I added the underline.)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: ialmisry on May 03, 2011, 06:21:01 PM
Christ is risen!
I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.


Frankly my Church teaches what was taught at Florence today.  The difficulty is that it was misunderstood then and it is misunderstood now.

Who the dickens are you to gainsay that?...
Someone Orthodox, at least on this issue.

No, we don't misunderstand. We understand, and therefore reject.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 06:58:03 PM
I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.


Frankly my Church teaches what was taught at Florence today.  The difficulty is that it was misunderstood then and it is misunderstood now.

Who the dickens are you to gainsay that?...

M.

Mary, the phrase "eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son" was indicative enough in and of itself and then the Orthodox have shown that the "as from one principle" was explained as the same as the Greek causation. You, OTOH, never provided any real rational to explain why this interpretation is incorrect, but have simply been reduced to sputterings of how it simply is the way you say it is. There isn't any more dialogue to be had here if you're going to continue that way.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 06:58:45 PM
Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.

You're probably right.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:01:13 PM
The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra

This is largely a fabrication. I don't see how that could be accurate if they're willing to adopt a Latin liturgy. You guys just like throwing that idea around because you think it can help you discredit those who criticize your doctrine.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:02:11 PM
as long as they remain so anti-Latin and object to everything in the West simply because it is Western

That almost never happens.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:06:07 PM
I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father

Yes, but then it turns around and says that because the Son receives all that the Father is that He must share in the spiration of the Spirit, and therefore reasons that the Father is still the source simply because the Son's being and therefore His ability to participate in the Spiration of the Spirit is dependent on the Father's Begetting Him.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:09:57 PM
Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.

LOL. So you say that they mean the same thing and the Greeks are the ones who are confused?  ::)
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:12:48 PM
There is no revision.  That's fact.

It is? Where is the evidence of this supposed fact?

You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

How so?
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:14:30 PM
A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

And in this thread, it seems to me that the RCs, for the most part, have been the more accommodating and willing to compromise, as it were, than the EOs here.

IIRC, even Papist would be for the removal of the filioque with the caveat that understanding of it within RC theology be allowed to remain, if it were to help bring the RC and OC closer together.

In terms of division, I just don't see the filioque being a strong reason, especially at the grass roots level, for the division between the Churches today. Papal authority much so.

If in the letter of this thread, the EOs might have the upper hand, it seems to me that the RCs have demonstrated a greater degree of charity and willingness to compromise.



 


As to whether the Son participates in the ontological causation of the Spirit, there can be no compromise.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on May 03, 2011, 07:17:52 PM
A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

And in this thread, it seems to me that the RCs, for the most part, have been the more accommodating and willing to compromise, as it were, than the EOs here.

IIRC, even Papist would be for the removal of the filioque with the caveat that understanding of it within RC theology be allowed to remain, if it were to help bring the RC and OC closer together.

In terms of division, I just don't see the filioque being a strong reason, especially at the grass roots level, for the division between the Churches today. Papal authority much so.

If in the letter of this thread, the EOs might have the upper hand, it seems to me that the RCs have demonstrated a greater degree of charity and willingness to compromise.



 


As to whether the Son participates in the ontological causation of the Spirit, there can be no compromise.

And I have yet to see that any of the RCs saying that here.

Let's pick two:

EM and Papist.

Do you believe that the Son ontologically participates in any way in the causation of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No. Let's make this simple.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:20:47 PM
This whole thing reminds me of the confusion over the Council of Chalcedon

Me too: another case where I believe the original document was not purely Orthodox.

It took a long time, but the EO and OO seemed to figure out that their actual beliefs were not very different,

That is because of the revision of Constantinople II, not because Chalcedon was actually Orthodox.

Christ made one church. Not two, not 30,000, one. It seems sometimes that people want to ignore each other, instead of trying to heal the body of Christ.

The Body of Christ is healthy and operating without those who broke off from Her.

If you don't think your side is the one that needs fixing, then you should at the very least want to bring your former brethren back into the fold. Christians should want to bring people to Christ.

I do want these parties to be united! Unfortunately the conversation is being conducted in a dishonest manner such that those who have more conservative interpretations of the Latin doctrines are treated as if they obviously don't want the Latins to return, which is just a logical catastrophe.

We can sit here and call each other heretics forever. Everyone, again, is forgetting that the excommunications of 1054 of both churches against each other were rescinded in 1965.

Not all EO even recognize that action. Those anathemas became symbolic of anathemas against the Latins' heretical doctrines and should not be lifted until they abandon those doctrines.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: deusveritasest on May 03, 2011, 07:22:54 PM
EM

We already know what she has to say.  ::)

But I have seen indications that there are some on here who will answer in the affirmative. So I would prefer to hear from Wyatt, Chris (Papist), and Peter.
Title: Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
Post by: orthonorm on May 03, 2011, 07:25:11 PM