OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Peter J on April 02, 2011, 05:38:36 PM

Title: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 02, 2011, 05:38:36 PM
As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 02, 2011, 05:40:29 PM
As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

We wouldn't feel anything.  We would dispassionately reject it as outright heresy. 
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 05:43:05 PM
As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 02, 2011, 05:54:26 PM
As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?

Well, I guess I'm not married to the word "feel".

Mainly I'm curious whether people will say "It would make no difference" or "That would be worse" or (fill in the blank).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 02, 2011, 06:02:54 PM
As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".
What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?
Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?
Well, I guess I'm not married to the word "feel".
Mainly I'm curious whether people will say "It would make no difference" or "That would be worse" or (fill in the blank).
It would be worse
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 02, 2011, 06:12:32 PM
As you probably all know, for most English-speaking Catholics the creed says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son".

What I'm wondering is, how would you Orthodox feel if this was changed to "proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son"?

Are you sure that "feel" is what you want to be asking about here?

Well, I guess I'm not married to the word "feel".

Mainly I'm curious whether people will say "It would make no difference" or "That would be worse" or (fill in the blank).

It would definitely be worse. The idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son with respect to His temporal mission (which could possibly be interpreted as the original meaning of the filioque) is much more agreeable to Orthodox Christianity than the idea of the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 03, 2011, 12:37:38 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: mike on April 03, 2011, 01:14:47 PM
Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Asteriktos on April 03, 2011, 01:17:24 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the (anti-filioque) work Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius (online version (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html)), and if so what did you think of his arguments?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 01:30:54 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the (anti-filioque) work Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius (online version (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html)), and if so what did you think of his arguments?

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/

Peter Gilbert, PhD, Orthodox Christian

Has done a great deal of good and original research on John Bekkos who wrote in opposition to Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.

The blog is sporadic and you will have to look through it pretty carefully.  I once spent several weeks of an hour or so per day going through the entire blog.  It was well worth the effort.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Asteriktos on April 03, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

Out of curiosity, have you ever read the (anti-filioque) work Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit by St. Photius (online version (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/photios_mystagogy.html)), and if so what did you think of his arguments?

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/

Peter Gilbert, PhD, Orthodox Christian

Has done a great deal of good and original research on John Bekkos who wrote in opposition to Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit.

The blog is sporadic and you will have to look through it pretty carefully.  I once spent several weeks of an hour or so per day going through the entire blog.  It was well worth the effort.

Thanks, I will have to look through it at some point this week (or for several weeks, lol)...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 03:09:06 PM
Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit." 
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 03:12:14 PM
Dogmatic Capitula of the 5th Ecumenical Council:  "I. If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, as also the energy and power--a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things."
 

 
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 03, 2011, 04:00:17 PM
Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.

Indeed. I'm bothered by Catholics making statements like this:

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: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 04:04:28 PM
Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  

One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.

But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 04:58:09 PM
Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  
One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
No, one one could postulate that as the Orthodox position is that it is hypostatic, not essential, begotteness and spiration (procession).   The Son and Spirit are of one essence with the Father because the Father is the SOLE cause of them and shares his nature/essence with them.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 05:00:43 PM
Lord have mercy.  Thank you Peter (a good, solid name, by the way).  With your attitude some progress can be made.  I pray that it "catches on." 

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.

Indeed. I'm bothered by Catholics making statements like this:

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: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 03, 2011, 05:12:25 PM
Thanks!
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 05:20:21 PM
Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  
One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
No, one one could postulate that as the Orthodox position is that it is hypostatic, not essential, begotteness and spiration (procession).   The Son and Spirit are of one essence with the Father because the Father is the SOLE cause of them and shares his nature/essence with them.

Father Dumitru Staniloae does just that, Father in his book Theology and the Church.

In a Chapter called  The Holy Trinity: Structure of Supreme Love, Father Dumitru quotes St. Gregory Nyssa on page 89 at the bottom: "But he who sees the Son sees the Father, the Father has begotten another Self of his own not by going outside himself but by revealing himself wholly in this other."

And of course we know that he has revealed himself wholly in this other through all eternity, and that, even according to your own words is an absolute sharing of essence.

Also to draw too fine a line between essence and hypostasis makes it impossible for the God-head ever really to be one...If it is eventually ONE...then it becomes impossible to imagine the THREE.

In any event Father Dumitru continues on page 90:

"The meaning of the divine begetting goes beyond any human power of understanding. But although the begetting of the Son conforms to the will of the Father, [and there is only ONE essential and divine will], it is necessarily bound up with his divine existence, for it is only by communicating this existence to the other...that God the Father can possess the full joy of the plenitude of divine existence.  God cannot be happy except as Father and Son...The Son comes forth from the "being of the Father" [St. Basil the Great] and not, as in the case with creatures, from His will."

So it seems to me that the divine essence, if nothing more than in the shared single divine will, blooms in the being of the Father and the Son and the Spirit.   I do not see how one can escape that theologic whether we call ourselves Orthodox or call ourselves Catholic.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 05:41:36 PM
Thank you for the reference.  However, I think that the negation of personfication negates our own existence, that God loves us not just as a human "nature-essence" that He created, but as persons in His own image--as beloved persons who share a single nature-essence.   

Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Right.  It seems that the meat of the issue is not being addressed.  The Father and Son share all things (in the essence, not in hypostasis).  But it is also true that the Spirit shares in all the things of the essence as well, which means that He woudl proceed from Himself if it is a matter of the "oneness" (essence) of the Trinity.   We cannot say that the Trinity is one in essence if we have to add "except for this one thing that the Father and Son don't share with the Spirit."  
One could postulate that if what you say here is correct then we are wrong to say that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.If there is NO essential difference then it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, one in essence...or that both the Son and the Spirit are begotten and proceed.But to make the distinction between the Son and the Spirit in this way by saying that one proceeds and one is begotten, when they are all essentially the same, is to establish a clear hierarchy within the Trinity.
No, one one could postulate that as the Orthodox position is that it is hypostatic, not essential, begotteness and spiration (procession).   The Son and Spirit are of one essence with the Father because the Father is the SOLE cause of them and shares his nature/essence with them.

Father Dumitru Staniloae does just that, Father in his book Theology and the Church.

In a Chapter called  The Holy Trinity: Structure of Supreme Love, Father Dumitru quotes St. Gregory Nyssa on page 89 at the bottom: "But he who sees the Son sees the Father, the Father has begotten another Self of his own not by going outside himself but by revealing himself wholly in this other."

And of course we know that he has revealed himself wholly in this other through all eternity, and that, even according to your own words is an absolute sharing of essence.

Also to draw too fine a line between essence and hypostasis makes it impossible for the God-head ever really to be one...If it is eventually ONE...then it becomes impossible to imagine the THREE.

In any event Father Dumitru continues on page 90:

"The meaning of the divine begetting goes beyond any human power of understanding. But although the begetting of the Son conforms to the will of the Father, [and there is only ONE essential and divine will], it is necessarily bound up with his divine existence, for it is only by communicating this existence to the other...that God the Father can possess the full joy of the plenitude of divine existence.  God cannot be happy except as Father and Son...The Son comes forth from the "being of the Father" [St. Basil the Great] and not, as in the case with creatures, from His will."

So it seems to me that the divine essence, if nothing more than in the shared single divine will, blooms in the being of the Father and the Son and the Spirit.   I do not see how one can escape that theologic whether we call ourselves Orthodox or call ourselves Catholic.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 05:58:44 PM
Thank you for the reference.  However, I think that the negation of personfication negates our own existence, that God loves us not just as a human "nature-essence" that He created, but as persons in His own image--as beloved persons who share a single nature-essence.    

I don't have much time to really respond now except to say that what I sent from Father Dumitru is only meant to indicate that the Father and the Son have a much different relationship from that of the Father and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit...and that the relationship is essential as well as hypostatic...in that the Son comes from the being of the Father as well as the Will.  But the focus, for the moment, I had hoped to be on the very unique relation between Father and Son.  Something that St. Gregory, Father Dumitru and St. Basil see as something interchangeable.  We don't see that interchangeable relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit:  However and I will offer more on this from Father Dumitru later if you would like: We do see that kind of interdependence with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And because these relationships occur within the Trinity and not without [St. Gregory Nyssa] then we must acknowledge that these relationships occur through all eternity...as if from one principle...

NOW:  IF you are a Latin...IF you are a Latin:  From one principle can mean EITHER from one source or from one one entity [in this case a set of relationships called Trinity].  IF you are Greek: From one principle can ONLY mean from one source.

That's where the real difficulty lies in understanding one another.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 06:31:36 PM
According to the Holy Fathers, both western and eastern, the relationship of the Son to the Spirit is that they are both caused from the sole Unbegotten God (the Father) who is their cause.  Their relationship to the Father is that He is their cause; their eternal relationship to each other that they are caused and have One prosopon/hypostasis (the Father) as their cause.     
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 03, 2011, 06:36:48 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.
So the Son must beget as wel, seeing as you claim "the Son possess everything which the Father does."

And no, the filioque de-emphasizes the oneness of the Spirt with the Father and Son, "Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified."
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 03, 2011, 06:40:53 PM
Thank you for the reference.  However, I think that the negation of personfication negates our own existence, that God loves us not just as a human "nature-essence" that He created, but as persons in His own image--as beloved persons who share a single nature-essence.    

I don't have much time to really respond now except to say that what I sent from Father Dumitru is only meant to indicate that the Father and the Son have a much different relationship from that of the Father and the Spirit, and the Son and the Spirit...and that the relationship is essential as well as hypostatic...in that the Son comes from the being of the Father as well as the Will.  But the focus, for the moment, I had hoped to be on the very unique relation between Father and Son.  Something that St. Gregory, Father Dumitru and St. Basil see as something interchangeable.  We don't see that interchangeable relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit:  However and I will offer more on this from Father Dumitru later if you would like: We do see that kind of interdependence with the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And because these relationships occur within the Trinity and not without [St. Gregory Nyssa] then we must acknowledge that these relationships occur through all eternity...as if from one principle...

NOW:  IF you are a Latin...IF you are a Latin:  From one principle can mean EITHER from one source or from one one entity [in this case a set of relationships called Trinity].  IF you are Greek: From one principle can ONLY mean from one source.

That's where the real difficulty lies in understanding one another.

The Father neither begets nor processes in Greek or Latin.  He does what He does. The Evangelist and the Fathers in Ecumenical Council, however, set it in Greek, and the Latin must conform to it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Asteriktos on April 03, 2011, 06:42:55 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.
So the Son must beget as wel, seeing as you claim "the Son possess everything which the Father does."

And no, the filioque de-emphasizes the oneness of the Spirt with the Father and Son, "Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified."

St. John of Damascus says that "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects" (Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 2). Then he goes on to make an exception. Catholics aren't doing something much different, if I'm understanding them...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 07:54:47 PM
I disagree.

The fuller context (De Fide Orthodoxa 1.2):
Quote
We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essence [ousia]; and that He is known, and has His being in three subsistences [hypostases], in Father, I say, and Son and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession; and that the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, in His bowels of mercy, for our salvation, by the good pleasure of God and the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, being conceived without seed, was born uncorruptedly of the Holy Virgin and Mother of God, Mary, by the Holy Spirit, and became of her perfect Man; and that the Same is at once perfect God and perfect Man, of two natures, Godhead and Manhood, and in two natures possessing intelligence, will and energy, and freedom, and, in a word, perfect according to the measure and proportion proper to each, at once to the divinity, I say, and to the humanity, yet to one composite person [hypostasis]; and that He suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, and was crucified, and for three days submitted to the experience of death and burial, and ascended to heaven, from which also He came to us, and shall come again. And the Holy Scripture is witness to this and the whole choir of the Saints.

I.e. they are one in all things (essence & energy/power), except the things that are particularly hypostatic (unoriginate, begotten, spirated).  This is exactly what dogmatic capitula 1 of the 5th Ecumenical Council says.   This reflects the position of the Orthodox Church, but not the Vatican's current position (unless JPII's words are to be believed, and upheld by Pope Benedict, but that remains to be seen). 

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 07:58:43 PM
^To keep with forum protocol:
De Fide Orthodoxa=On the Orthodox Faith
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 03, 2011, 08:00:28 PM
Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 03, 2011, 08:17:53 PM
Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 03, 2011, 08:37:24 PM
Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 03, 2011, 08:59:38 PM
Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
Correct.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 09:14:33 PM
Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?


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: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 09:20:04 PM
Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 09:30:19 PM
Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

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: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 09:32:40 PM
Hi Maria.  I feel like you did not just read what I wrote and consider it.   When you speak a word (voice), it is distinct from the breath that accompanies it.  Both have a single origin, the person who spoke and breath, and both proceed out of the mouth. 

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

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: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 09:40:20 PM
If we accept that reading then the Son of God did not make the heavens and the host of the heavens but the Holy Spirit did.  I have never heard that teaching.

"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [being the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

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).

Hi Maria.  I feel like you did not just read what I wrote and consider it.   When you speak a word (voice), it is distinct from the breath that accompanies it.  Both have a single origin, the person who spoke and breath, and both proceed out of the mouth. 

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

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: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 10:06:09 PM
Hi Maria.  I feel like I am now entering the twilight zone.  I don't understand how from "by the Word" (that's the Son) the heavens were made that you derive that the heavens were not made by the Word (the Son).   If they were made by the Son, then they weren't not made by the Son.  Again, at this point, the discussion is getting a little weird. 

If we accept that reading then the Son of God did not make the heavens and the host of the heavens but the Holy Spirit did.  I have never heard that teaching.

"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [being the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

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).

Hi Maria.  I feel like you did not just read what I wrote and consider it.   When you speak a word (voice), it is distinct from the breath that accompanies it.  Both have a single origin, the person who spoke and breath, and both proceed out of the mouth. 

Okay, I have a question. What do words like "unoriginate," "begotten," and "spirated" mean when speaking of eternal Beings?
=/=
So those words only indicate that they are not the same, but not how they are not the same?
They indicate how they are distinct hypostases, and also how they have the divinity.  On the Father is the unoriginate God, the Son is begotten from all eternity, the Spirit is spirated from all eternity.  Although speaking about the creative economy, the Psalm speaks of the Trinity regarding the eternal relations:
"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6).  
A word cannot be begotten from a mouth without a breath being spirated (try to speak without giving breath--does not work--the begetting of a word and the spirating of breath, however, are distinct processes even though they happen synchronously).  Of course, in the case of the Trinity, this happened outside of time and before anything was created.    

Is not the Son the Word of the mouth of the Father? and is not the Breath of the Word the creative work of the Spirit?

Also we have not addressed the following:

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: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 03, 2011, 10:10:59 PM
Let's try it this way:


"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [the Spirit emanating from the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

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).
[/size]
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 10:29:54 PM
St. John of Damascus: "We do not speak of three Gods...but rather of one God, the Holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to the One Cause...God the Father, Who is the Principle and Cause of all" (Orth.Faith 8  ).  
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 10:31:36 PM
^Sorry, on the last reference had to space because otherwise made a glasses emoticon
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 10:32:24 PM
"There is one God because the Father is the Begetter of the unique Son and the Fount of the Holy Spirit"  (St. Maximus the Confessor, 7th c.:  1st C. Various Texts, 4)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 10:33:29 PM
"Everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, with the exception of causality" (St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34.10).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 03, 2011, 10:36:09 PM
No one denies the Spirit is the third person in the Trinity.  But that He is the third person does not necessitate a causality from any other, as indeed, St. Gregory the Theologion stated, only the Father has such causality. 

Let's try it this way:


"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [the Spirit emanating from the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

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).
[/size]
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 04, 2011, 02:51:13 AM
If we accept that reading then the Son of God did not make the heavens and the host of the heavens but the Holy Spirit did.  I have never heard that teaching.
and you haven't heard it here.

"By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Breath [Spirit] of His mouth" (Ps. 33.6)

In my reading, actually the reading of my Church, the Word creates by the Spirit of His mouth [being the mouth of the Son] which would fit with the following which we keep ignoring:

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).
My, rather fixed on St. Gregory are we.  Rather odd that it doesn't survive in his works, but only in a attribution in St. John of Damascus.
The Greek is
Quote
Ο τε γαρ Υισος εκ του Πατρος εξηλθεν, καθως φησιν η Γραφη, και το Πνευμα εκ του Θεου και παρα Πατρος εκπορευεται. Αλλ' ωσπερ το ανευ αιτιας ειναι, μονου του Πατρος ον, τω Υιω και τω Πνευματι εναρμοσθηναι ου δυναται, ουτω το εμπαλιν το εξ αιτιας ειναι, οπερ ιδιον εστι του Υιου και του Πνευματος, τω πατρι επιθεωρηθηναι φυσιν ουκ εχει, Κοινου δε οντος τω Υιω και τω Πνευματι του μη αγεννητος ειναι, ως εν μη τις συγχυσις περι το υποκειμενον θεωρηθειη, παλιν εστιν αμικτον την εν τοις ιδιωμασιν αυτων διαφοραν εξευρειν, ως αν και το κοινον φυλαχθειη, και το ιδιου μη συγχυειη. Ο γαρ μονογενης Υιος εκ του πατρος παρα της αγιας Γραφης ονομαζεται, και μεχρι τουτου ο λογος ιστησιν αυτω το ιδιωμα. Το δε αγιον Πνευμα και εκ του Πατρος λεγεται, και εκ του Υιου ειναι προσμαρτυρειαι. Ει γαρ τις Πνευμα Χριστου ουκ εχει, φησιν, ουτος ουκ εστιν αυτου. Ουκουν το μεν Πνευμα εκ του Θεου, και Θεου Πνευμα εστιν. Ο δε Υιος εκ Θεου ων, ουκιτι και Πνευματος, ουτε εστιν, ουτε λεγεται ουδε ανασταριφει η σχετικη ακολουθια αυτη
and the Latin of Migne, which no doubt is that upon which the Vatican depends (though neither St. Gregory nor St. John spoke Latin):
Quote
Nam et Filius exivit a Patre, ut ait Scriptura, et Spiritus ex Deo et Patre procedit. Sed quemadmodum sine principio esse, cum sit Patris solius, Filio et Spiritui sancto convenire non potest: sic contra a principio esse, quod est proporium Filii et Spiritus, in Patre considerari natura non patitur.  Jam cum Filio et Spiritui sancto commune sit, ut non ingenito modo exsistant, ne qua in subjecto confusio spectetur: rursus incommunicabilem ia eorum proprietatibus differentiam invenire possumus, ut et quod commune est servetur, et quod proprium est non confundatur.  Exenim unigenitus Filius ex Patre in Scriptura sacra dicitur, et hactenus ejus proprietatem illius dotrina definit.  At Spiritus sanctus et ex Patre dicitur, et ex Filio esse perhibetur.  Si quis enim, ait, Spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est ipsius.  Igitur Spiritus qui ex Deo est, etiam Dei Spiritus est. At Filius cum ex Deo sit, non jam tamen Filius Spiritus aut est, aut dicitur: neque haec relativa consecutio convertitur.

"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

It is odd, given so much that St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote on the Holy Trinity, that your footnote bypasses all that to get this forgotten citation, so yank out the last line.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 04, 2011, 10:21:55 AM

"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

I was getting there, but it takes time to outline things clearly when being drawn off by un-friendly fire [meaning only rejection, nothing more]. 

Do you see the word "property" in the full quote? 

The filioque does not deny the property of causality to the Father.  What the filioque does is highlight the last TWO lines of the quote.  So when the Spirit is of the Son, the Spirit is not bearing the property of causality from the Son, which is only proper to the Father.  When the Spirit comes from the Son, the Spirit bears the property of causality from the Father alone.

What the filioque does is clearly establish the relationships and the order of relationships in the Trinity as noted in this long quote from St. Gregory.  And it is that clarity which the Arian heresy demands.

It has been said, and I believe it to be true, that the filioque risks the heresy of modalism, BUT the insistent denial by the east of filioque then runs the clear risk of subordinationism.   Note that I say "risks" and not ensures.

To use filioque in the Latin west was to acknowledge explicitly BOTH the monarchy of the Father AND the particular relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

You can howl and disavow all you want about it's accuracy, but in theological reality...it is sheer pettiness to do so.  There is no inherent heresy in filioque.


Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 04, 2011, 01:55:41 PM

"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

I was getting there, but it takes time to outline things clearly when being drawn off by un-friendly fire [meaning only rejection, nothing more]
so you kept firing this shot?

Do you see the word "property" in the full quote?


Just because its there. I could translate φυσιν as "nature," but I'm afraid that would muddle things further.

The filioque does not deny the property of causality to the Father.

Yes, it does.

What the filioque does is highlight the last TWO lines of the quote.
and twist them.

Again, all the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and they picke this discarded cherry from that orchard.

So when the Spirit is of the Son, the Spirit is not bearing the property of causality from the Son, which is only proper to the Father.  When the Spirit comes from the Son, the Spirit bears the property of causality from the Father alone.
Then then He isn't "and of the Son." Btw, if St. Gregory said what is claimed here, he is wrong:ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

What the filioque does is clearly establish the relationships and the order of relationships in the Trinity
No, it muddles them.

as noted in this long quote from St. Gregory.
WHich your source and authority abbreviated and edited.

And it is that clarity which the Arian heresy demands.
Odd that the Orthodox killed off Arianism without the filioque.
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.

It has been said, and I believe it to be true, that the filioque risks the heresy of modalism, BUT the insistent denial by the east of filioque then runs the clear risk of subordinationism.   Note that I say "risks" and not ensures.
Filioque ensures subordinationism.

To use filioque in the Latin west was to acknowledge explicitly BOTH the monarchy of the Father AND the particular relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
And it missed on both.

You can howl and disavow all you want about it's accuracy, but in theological reality
No howing, just anathematizing.  The pillars of Orthodoxy and the Fathers of Constantinople IV (879) accurately stated the theological reality of the filioque, that it is heresy.

...it is sheer pettiness to do so.
 
Your mantras do not work on the Holy Trinity.

There is no inherent heresy in filioque.
The Fathers demonstrate otherwise. For one thing, it makes the Father a begetter of the Spirit.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 04, 2011, 02:09:29 PM
I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.   

The east "rid" themselves of Arianism by paying the Arians in real gold to move west, which they did, of course and there is a clear record of that bit of human migratory influence in the west.

The brief explanatory passage from St. Gregory is taken out of St. John Damascene so it did go through a bit of updating but that is relative since both Holy Fathers seem to be agreed.   The complaint about this originating passage being a "throw away" is not sustained since St. John Damascene did not throw it away but used it.

The rest are unsubstantiated assertions, so I won't comment till I see something more than assertion being offered here.

It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.


"Now since the Son comes forth from the Father, as Scripture declares, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the side of [the] Father. But just as He is without cause, which is of the Father alone, which cannot be conjoined to the Son and the Spirit, so that is contrary to that [which comes] out of the cause, the very thing which is the very own of the Son and of the Spirit, it does not have the property considered for the Father. But being common to the Son and the Spirit is of not unbegotten, as viewed not in confusion around the underlying, again it is unmingled to find the difference in their own property, as if also to divide the common, and not to confuse what is proper.  Since the only begotten Son of the Father is named by holy Scripture, as far as this word set the specific feature for Him. But the Holy Spirit is also called of the Father, and He is of the Son is further attested, "Since he who does not have the Spirit of Christ," he declares, "he is none of His."  Certainly therefore the Spirit is of the Father, and the Spiirt of God. But the Son being of God, Who is not of the Spirit, which is not said, but not overturn its relevant sequence."

I was getting there, but it takes time to outline things clearly when being drawn off by un-friendly fire [meaning only rejection, nothing more]
so you kept firing this shot?

Do you see the word "property" in the full quote?


Just because its there. I could translate φυσιν as "nature," but I'm afraid that would muddle things further.

The filioque does not deny the property of causality to the Father.

Yes, it does.

What the filioque does is highlight the last TWO lines of the quote.
and twist them.

Again, all the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and they picke this discarded cherry from that orchard.

So when the Spirit is of the Son, the Spirit is not bearing the property of causality from the Son, which is only proper to the Father.  When the Spirit comes from the Son, the Spirit bears the property of causality from the Father alone.
Then then He isn't "and of the Son." Btw, if St. Gregory said what is claimed here, he is wrong:ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.

What the filioque does is clearly establish the relationships and the order of relationships in the Trinity
No, it muddles them.

as noted in this long quote from St. Gregory.
WHich your source and authority abbreviated and edited.

And it is that clarity which the Arian heresy demands.
Odd that the Orthodox killed off Arianism without the filioque.
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.

It has been said, and I believe it to be true, that the filioque risks the heresy of modalism, BUT the insistent denial by the east of filioque then runs the clear risk of subordinationism.   Note that I say "risks" and not ensures.
Filioque ensures subordinationism.

To use filioque in the Latin west was to acknowledge explicitly BOTH the monarchy of the Father AND the particular relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
And it missed on both.

You can howl and disavow all you want about it's accuracy, but in theological reality
No howing, just anathematizing.  The pillars of Orthodoxy and the Fathers of Constantinople IV (879) accurately stated the theological reality of the filioque, that it is heresy.

...it is sheer pettiness to do so.
 
Your mantras do not work on the Holy Trinity.

There is no inherent heresy in filioque.
The Fathers demonstrate otherwise. For one thing, it makes the Father a begetter of the Spirit.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 05, 2011, 04:58:35 PM
ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.
Very true.  Since this has been brought up:

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."[/quote]

There is no inherent heresy in filioque.
The Fathers demonstrate otherwise. For one thing, it makes the Father a begetter of the Spirit.
  Right.  God the Father is not "dear old grand-dad" to the Spirit. 
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 05, 2011, 05:46:48 PM
ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.
Very true.  Since this has been brought up:

Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

[/quote]

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Basil 320 on April 05, 2011, 07:09:43 PM
Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.

The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 05, 2011, 08:02:53 PM
Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.

The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.

Now how is that for breaking your own rules?

I am afraid this particular argument that you offer here carries less weight on account.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Melodist on April 05, 2011, 08:12:45 PM
It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.

The position of the west (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=24965160&CFTOKEN=41888425) is that

Quote
The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

It's one thing to use the concept of filioque in theological writings where it is understood and acceoted that the context is consubstantial communion within the Trinity, it's another to put into an ecumenical creed that was originally written to describe a different aspect of the Trinity.

Even if I were to say that there may be no real difference in what is actually believed (which I don't think there is a real difference), it still wouldn't change the fact that the context (ekporeusis) in which the creed was originally written does not allow for the filioque.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 05, 2011, 08:30:09 PM
The position of the west (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=24965160&CFTOKEN=41888425) is that

Quote
The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

Good quotation, Melodist. While there's nothing wrong, in principle, with internet-forum posts saying "The Catholic [or Orthodox] position is such-and-such", there is a danger of people treating those posts as if they were authoritative. (In my own personal experience, I can't tell you how many times I heard a Protestant or Orthodox poster say "I heard such-and-such on catholic.com, so that proves that it's the Catholic position.")
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 05, 2011, 08:38:12 PM
This is an excellent contribution to the discussion, from my own personal point of view, and I am pleasantly surprised and grateful to see it.

I think it is also necessary to note that since the Creed is catechized in the west with the
Father-as-Monarch, then the Creed would be reflective of both theologics:  Father as source and Filioque.

Given that reality then I think the addition of filioque, given its longevity and the fact that it is not heretical, should be allowed in the western liturgy by virtue of tradition, which is not a negligible influence on doctrine in both the east and the west.

The history is not a happy one but we should be able to abide in charity in spite of the human weaknesses involved in that history.

Those are my thoughts.


It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.

The position of the west (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=24965160&CFTOKEN=41888425) is that

Quote
The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

It's one thing to use the concept of filioque in theological writings where it is understood and acceoted that the context is consubstantial communion within the Trinity, it's another to put into an ecumenical creed that was originally written to describe a different aspect of the Trinity.

Even if I were to say that there may be no real difference in what is actually believed (which I don't think there is a real difference), it still wouldn't change the fact that the context (ekporeusis) in which the creed was originally written does not allow for the filioque.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Melodist on April 05, 2011, 08:51:10 PM
The position of the west (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=24965160&CFTOKEN=41888425) is that

Quote
The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole Monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit.

...

The Greek ekporeusis signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.

...

In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St. Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of 'procession' (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A).4

In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusis.

...

According to St. Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusis of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's Monarchy.

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common."

Good quotation, Melodist. While there's nothing wrong, in principle, with internet-forum posts saying "The Catholic [or Orthodox] position is such-and-such", there is a danger of people treating those posts as if they were authoritative. (In my own personal experience, I can't tell you how many times I heard a Protestant or Orthodox poster say "I heard such-and-such on catholic.com, so that proves that it's the Catholic position.")

Well, the site that I linked to does give the author of the document.

Quote
The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions
by Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity


and while the text is not posted, it is listed (second from the bottom) on the Vatican's web site (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_general-docs.htm). I don't know how authoritative or official you would consider it, but given the source, I would hope that it would be fairly representative of the Roman Catholic faith.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 05, 2011, 09:02:58 PM
Melodist, I'm extremely puzzled by your last post. You reacted as though I criticized you for citing that document, rather than praising you for it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 05, 2011, 09:04:12 PM
Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.

The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.

Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.
What Council would that be, between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils? The 1 1/2 Ecumenical Council?  You don't even need to know Church history to figure that one out.

The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople I set their seal on the Orthodox Creed, sealing it with their canon. Now we know that you all think a certain bishop (who wasn't at Nicea and had no representative at all at Constantinople I) by quirks of history and geography can ignore that and unseal it and change it all by himself, and you all have demonstrated that you can't distinguish between an Ecumenical Council and a local council off on the periphery of Christendom with heretical kings, but we're going to persist in recognizing the mandate of the Fathers of the First Two Ecumenical Councils.

Now how is that for breaking your own rule?
Those who set the rules cannot break them.  Those who make it up as they go along are in a different class than the Fathers.

I am afraid this particular argument that you offer here carries less weight on account.
Yes, your argument that a handful of bishops off in the stix can strike a deal with a heretical local king to change the Creed of the whole Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Ecumenical Councils makes soooo much more sense. ::)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 05, 2011, 09:06:17 PM
Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."
Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.Now how is that for breaking your own rules?
Actually the council that said the faith could not change (Ephesus) was in between Constantinople and Chalcedon, not in between Nicea and Constantinople.    
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 05, 2011, 09:11:05 PM
Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.
Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 05, 2011, 09:13:29 PM
Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."
Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.Now how is that for breaking your own rules?
Actually the council that said the faith could not change (Ephesus) was in between Constantinople and Chalcedon, not in between Nicea and Constantinople.    

Yes!!...You are correct but we don't have records of Constantinople is that correct?  I knew I was shortchanging things after I sent my note but I figured you or someone would correct me.  In any event it is pretty clear that the Creed has changed over time in ways other than "filioque"...I am remembering that I read that it changed after Ephesus...I need to go back and look at that history of the councils because I've forgotten too much of it to be shooting from the hip.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 05, 2011, 09:26:30 PM
Probably need to be careful here or we wind up saying that the virgin is the mother of the Son of God, rather than saying that the virigin is the Mother of God.


Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.
Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 05, 2011, 09:30:38 PM
We have records of the council, particularly from the following sources:
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon
The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret
We have the letter of the fathers of the council to St. Damasus of Rome on the decision of the council, which he in turn responded to by drafting letters on behalf of the synod in Rome to others to solidify its decisions and its pronounced faith.  

Eastern Orthodox Christian Church doctrine cannot be changed.  It is promulgated by Ecumenical Synods (Councils), assemblies of the church hierarchy, accepted by the clergy and the faithful, and ratified by subsequent Ecumenical Synods. It thus became the infallible teaching of the Church.The Creed, the Symbol of Faith, was promulgated by the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synods of the Undivided Church.  Its 9th Article, like the basis of other doctrine of Holy Orthodoxy, is primarily based on Holy Scripture:  "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me," Gospel of St. John the Theologian, 15: 26.  Thus, the 9th Article of the Symbol of Faith: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified..."
Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople the Creed changed.Between the Council of Nicea and Constantinople was the Council that said the Creed could not change.Now how is that for breaking your own rules?
 Actually the council that said the faith could not change (Ephesus) was in between Constantinople and Chalcedon, not in between Nicea and Constantinople.  
 Yes!!...You are correct but we don't have records of Constantinople is that correct?  I knew I was shortchanging things after I sent my note but I figured you or someone would correct me.  In any event it is pretty clear that the Creed has changed over time in ways other than "filioque"...I am remembering that I read that it changed after Ephesus...I need to go back and look at that history of the councils because I've forgotten too much of it to be shooting from the hip.


Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 05, 2011, 09:33:21 PM
That is not in any way a logically correlative response to what was said.   

Probably need to be careful here or we wind up saying that the virgin is the mother of the Son of God, rather than saying that the virigin is the Mother of God.


Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.
Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 05, 2011, 09:37:20 PM
We have records of the council, particularly from the following sources:
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon
The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret
We have the letter of the fathers of the council to St. Damasus of Rome on the decision of the council, which he in turn responded to by drafting letters on behalf of the synod in Rome to others to solidify its decisions and its pronounced faith.  

Thank you...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 05, 2011, 09:38:38 PM
Then I've missed your original point.  Sorry to have led off on a rabbit trail.

That is not in any way a logically correlative response to what was said.   

Probably need to be careful here or we wind up saying that the virgin is the mother of the Son of God, rather than saying that the virigin is the Mother of God.


Not sure what is not clear.  Isa pointed out that one cannot say that "the Son is not of the Spirit," because it is in the creed.  I pointed out that this same example is in Scripture as well.  

ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.
Very true.  Since this has been brought up:
Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."
Matthew 1:20  "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Fathers agree that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and is all one and the same Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father and the Son acts in the world.  So I am not sure what point you are making here.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2011, 12:18:08 AM
I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.
   
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

The east "rid" themselves of Arianism by paying the Arians in real gold to move west, which they did, of course and there is a clear record of that bit of human migratory influence in the west.
The Goths were paid as barbarians, not Arians, and they were settled in Thrace.  The East later rid the entire West of the Arians (which were persecuting the Orthodox of the Catholic Church), except in Spain where the Arians were paid off by corrupting the Nicene Creed.

The brief explanatory passage from St. Gregory is taken out of St. John Damascene so it did go through a bit of updating but that is relative since both Holy Fathers seem to be agreed.
with each other but not with your council of Toledo, your supreme pontiff Leo IX, nor the Vatican. Your quote doesn't have even claim St. John did any "updating" which is particularly unlikely as he explicitely denies the meaning your are trying to read into it:
Quote
Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause [Text, αἴτιον: variant, ἀναίτιον causeless] or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son [cf. St. Maximus Epistle to Marin; ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐ λέγομεν. See also ch. xii., καὶ Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα οὐχ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ, and at the close of the Epist. ad Jordan, Πνεῦμα Υἱοῦ μὴ ἐξ Υἱοῦ "The Spirit of the Son not of/from the Son"] but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His [Rom. viii. 9., saith the divine apostle\. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit [St. John xx. 29]. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit,
   
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.viii.html
So it would be odd if St. John plucked a citation from obscurity to contradict his own views.

The complaint about this originating passage being a "throw away" is not sustained since St. John Damascene did not throw it away but used it.
Did he?  I am becoming a little suspicious about that: your document elsewhere cites the Kotter edition of the complete works of St. John, but not here.  Your footnote (which you did not continue to quote) ends with a quote of St. Maximos the Confessor which Migne (the "substantiation" of the St. Gregory/St. John quote) even labels "questionable and dubious."

The rest are unsubstantiated assertions, so I won't comment till I see something more than assertion being offered here.[/quote]
Unlike your Vatican's commission, from which your footnote is taken
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
http://books.google.com/books?id=qQoWBB6gqQQC&pg=PA90&dq=Gregory+Nyssa+John+Damascene+PG+46.+1109+BC&hl=en&ei=yLObTb7vDauO0QGq-tDNAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gregory%20Nyssa%20John%20Damascene%20PG%2046.%201109%20BC&f=false
I gave you the entire quote-or what is left of it.  St. Gregory wrote thousands of lines on the Trinity, the Son, and the Spirit, and yet the Vatican rummages down in the bowels of Migne to pull out this reputed fragment.  Since many of those lines explicitely contradict the filioque  (and St. Gregory is said to have drafted the wording in 381) like St. John, that should-though I understand why it doesn't-cause you to wonder why pull up this buried cherry.  That's if it is even authentic.


It is still the position of the west that the Father is monarch and the filioque illuminates the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
That is the position only of the heretical West, not the Orthodox one. Not the position, for instance, of the OCA, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America, the WRO vicarates, the Orthodox Episcopal Conference of Italy and Malta, the Romanian Episcopate of Italy, including the bishop at Rome, etc..  Nor, IIRC any longer of some Episcopalians, Altkatholisch, PNCC, etc.

In my way of thinking they found the best of both worlds to be most illuminating and edifying.
The mind of the Church and the phronema of the Fathers found it damnable in this world and the next, most corrupting and destructive.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Melodist on April 06, 2011, 07:53:44 AM
Melodist, I'm extremely puzzled by your last post. You reacted as though I criticized you for citing that document, rather than praising you for it.


I misunderstood. Sorry.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 06, 2011, 03:40:07 PM
I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.
 
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

I posted the notes to indicate the provenance of the teaching.  All you are doing is asserting your personal opinion and drawing in extraneous material that does nothing to advance the theological discussion.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2011, 04:12:43 PM
I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.
 
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

I posted the notes to indicate the provenance of the teaching.
It is not the provenance of the teaching. The Latins mistranslated, and then compounded their error with scholastic speculation on it. When confronted with their mistake, instead of correcting it, they dug in their heals and proceeded "aduce" proofs of it.  When it had been obvious to all that it is an interpolation, they desperately scoured anything, ANYTHING that could be remotely misconstrued into teaching filioque. Hence why they ignored all the writings of St. Gregory and most of St. John in favor of this dubia. What they have down is taped the poison apple of the filiquo unto a branch of the Fathers, and claimed it is their fruit.

All you are doing is asserting your personal opinion
I'm just parroting the pillars of Orthodoxy, and the Fathers of the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils.


and drawing in extraneous material

Yeah, context is a pain.  Giving the full quote, the first half of which undermines the misinterpretation being proferred, and mentioning the rest of the footnote's citations, which show that your authorities are not above appeal to apocrypha, I see could give apologists for the Vatican heartburn.

that does nothing to advance the theological discussion.
I make no apology to impeding sophistry and jesuitry from sneaking the filioque in.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 06, 2011, 04:27:49 PM
I don't see any argument of substance here against the Filioque.  The only ones that may look substantial are really only assertions.
 
Your commission report is one long assertion, but yet you quote it, at least its footnotes.

I posted the notes to indicate the provenance of the teaching.
It is not the provenance of the teaching. The Latins mistranslated, and then compounded their error with scholastic speculation on it.

Lots of folks don't think so, including Orthodox theologians and scholars over the centuries, as well as more than a few of the Holy Fathers. 

You are just clinging to the Photian schism and blowing smoke.

Have fun... :laugh:
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 06, 2011, 04:40:22 PM
Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 06, 2011, 04:42:09 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Saint Iaint on April 06, 2011, 05:28:34 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Hear, hear.

†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 06, 2011, 05:31:02 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Yes.  There are two threads on this going but it has been mentioned
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 06, 2011, 05:45:56 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Melodist on April 06, 2011, 06:03:32 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

It could in the event of another council, which is not the case with the filioque. It was a "change in the creed" at the second ecumenical council that inserted the the clause about the procession of the Holy Spirit. If another controversy came up that required a little more clarification, the Church (as a whole) can (and has) change the creed to reflect an expression of the faith as it is needed.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 06, 2011, 06:07:57 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Yes.  It has and I responded without going back and looking at the actual history, but there is a book by Jaroslav Pelikan called Credo which is an excellent historical survey of the various creeds in history and how they have been used over time, and how they have changed.

I am not convinced by this argument of the Orthodox who use it against Filioque.  

It falls in the same category of arguments, from my perspective, as the assertion that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom remains unchanged.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 06, 2011, 06:34:20 PM
Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 06, 2011, 07:32:33 PM
Melodist, I'm extremely puzzled by your last post. You reacted as though I criticized you for citing that document, rather than praising you for it.


I misunderstood. Sorry.

Oh that's alright. Actually, it was nice to get a response. I get the impression that some of the Orthodox around here are only interested in what elijahmaria has to say.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Asteriktos on April 06, 2011, 07:43:03 PM
Oh that's alright. Actually, it was nice to get a response. I get the impression that some of the Orthodox around here are only interested in what elijahmaria has to say.

If I were a Catholic, I'm not sure that I would want the attention of some of the Orthodox around here... ;)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 06, 2011, 07:45:18 PM
Oh that's alright. Actually, it was nice to get a response. I get the impression that some of the Orthodox around here are only interested in what elijahmaria has to say.

If I were a Catholic, I'm not sure that I would want the attention of some of the Orthodox around here... ;)

Chuckle. Yeah, I imagine a lot of Catholics feel that way -- but then, most of them don't post here at all.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Apotheoun on April 06, 2011, 07:56:26 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in common all that is proper to the divine essence, while they are distinct in the properties that are unique to their hypostaseis.  That said, the Father - as person - is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos' letter to Marinus), and so if one were to posit the idea that either the ability to generate the Son or to process the Spirit was somehow common to one or both of the other two persons within the Trinity it follows that the other person within the Trinity would possess a hypostatic property of the Father, and would also be the Father.  That is why - for Eastern Christians - the filioque is often referred to as a type of Sabellian Modalism, because it attempts to give the Father's unique hypostatic ability to process (ekporeusis) the Spirit - as sole cause within the Godhead - to the Son as a common property of the Father and the Son, which involves a confusion of the hypostaseis of the Father and the Son.  Moreover, this attempt to give a hypostatic property that is unique to the Father to the Son has the added difficult of dividing the persons of the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, who is not given this new common property, which is why Eastern Orthodox Christians often see the Western theory of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - as from one principle - as the promotion of a type of ditheism.

The only viable solution to the present impasse is for the West to return to its original understanding of the filioque as described and defended in the 7th century Letter of Maximos to Marinus, then - and only then - would Orthodox objections to the Western theory of Trinitarian relations be overcome, but so far the Latin Church has been unwilling to do that, and has instead continued to defend the late medieval understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which ultimately makes the Son with the Father - as the Council of Florence says - the cause (atia) of the Spirit's subsistence.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 07, 2011, 01:29:46 AM
Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.

You seem to have avoided my question; if the *expression of truth* you use (assuming the filioque were true) is an expression that happens to lead people into error because of the way it presents itself, why keep it? If the east is "saying the same thing" and their expression of this same truth does not lead people into that error, why not adopt it?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 10:45:35 AM
Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.

You seem to have avoided my question; if the *expression of truth* you use (assuming the filioque were true) is an expression that happens to lead people into error because of the way it presents itself, why keep it? If the east is "saying the same thing" and their expression of this same truth does not lead people into that error, why not adopt it?

You are the one asserting that it leads people into error.  The fact of the matter is that it does not.  It does not express the same thing as the eastern Creed.  It expresses what the eastern Creed expresses and adds a component that explains the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit.  It does more than the eastern Creed.  That is true but it does not negate the eastern Creed and it leads no one into any inherent error as the Orthodox claim.  Any error caused by Filioque is a matter of poor understanding and false interpretation.  That can happen with ANY truth of the Faith.  We all need to be well catechized or we are susceptible to error.

So there's not need to remove it.

You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 07, 2011, 11:21:48 AM
You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.
(http://wiki.ironchariots.org/images/b/bc/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png)

You can use a No True Scotsman argument to posit a mythical group of "properly catechized" that fit your criteria. But that's really pointless.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 12:37:51 PM
You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.
(http://wiki.ironchariots.org/images/b/bc/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.png)

You can use a No True Scotsman argument to posit a mythical group of "properly catechized" that fit your criteria. But that's really pointless.

Catholics with an orthodox Catholic phronema are hardly beside the point.  They are the point.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 01:03:07 PM
Has anyone mentioned yet that, by the decision of ecumenical councils, the Creed cannot be changed?

Yes.  It has and I responded without going back and looking at the actual history,
Yes, we have.
but there is a book by Jaroslav Pelikan called Credo which is an excellent historical survey of the various creeds in history and how they have been used over time, and how they have changed.
We are not talking about "various Creed." We are talking what is called in Greek the "Symbol of Faith," and in Arabic "The Canon/Law of Faith" or "The Constitution of the Faith." Just a tad different. :police:

I am not convinced by this argument of the Orthodox who use it against Filioque.
 \
Invincible ignorance.

It falls in the same category of arguments, from my perspective, as the assertion that the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom remains unchanged.
You will have to be more specific by what you mean by "change": puberty or gender reassignment.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.
Or, like the WRO, condemn it with the Fathers of the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, and root it out.

The Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life, does not change and has lived longer than the filioque.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 01:10:45 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in common all that is proper to the divine essence, while they are distinct in the properties that are unique to their hypostaseis.  That said, the Father - as person - is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos' letter to Marinus), and so if one were to posit the idea that either the ability to generate the Son or to process the Spirit was somehow common to one or both of the other two persons within the Trinity it follows that the other person within the Trinity would possess a hypostatic property of the Father, and would also be the Father.  That is why - for Eastern Christians - the filioque is often referred to as a type of Sabellian Modalism, because it attempts to give the Father's unique hypostatic ability to process (ekporeusis) the Spirit - as sole cause within the Godhead - to the Son as a common property of the Father and the Son, which involves a confusion of the hypostaseis of the Father and the Son.  Moreover, this attempt to give a hypostatic property that is unique to the Father to the Son has the added difficult of dividing the persons of the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, who is not given this new common property, which is why Eastern Orthodox Christians often see the Western theory of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - as from one principle - as the promotion of a type of ditheism.

The only viable solution to the present impasse is for the West to return to its original understanding of the filioque as described and defended in the 7th century Letter of Maximos to Marinus, then - and only then - would Orthodox objections to the Western theory of Trinitarian relations be overcome, but so far the Latin Church has been unwilling to do that, and has instead continued to defend the late medieval understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which ultimately makes the Son with the Father - as the Council of Florence says - the cause (atia) of the Spirit's subsistence.
Yes, they are now defending the defense of the mistranslation.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 01:47:44 PM
Elijahmaria,

Let's take this in a slightly different direction.

Even IF the filioque were technically correct, would you agree that the filioque has contributed to many western Christians "writing off" the Trinity as an unrelatable abstraction? Would you agree that it contributed to the horrendous "shield of the trinity" concept that deposes the Father as the source of the Godhead and leads to modalism (note, I said "leads to")?

That is my main problem with the filioque. I know that if you really want to be a pharisee you can come up with several ways to re-interpret the filioque in a technically Orthodox manner. But won't it simply do more unnecessary damage to our understanding to God and our ability to relate to Him personally to accept it, or to allow the Westerns to keep using it if unification were to occur?

Dear Nicholas,

Is seeking the truth really Pharisaical?  I don't think that it is.

Also if filioque is not heretical but is a theological truth, and it has been a credal tradition in the west for as many generations as it has been, then we are obliged, literally in good faith,  to catechize it and retain it in the Roman tradition, while explaining why it is necessarily not part of the eastern tradition.

M.

You seem to have avoided my question; if the *expression of truth* you use (assuming the filioque were true) is an expression that happens to lead people into error because of the way it presents itself, why keep it? If the east is "saying the same thing" and their expression of this same truth does not lead people into that error, why not adopt it?

You are the one asserting that it leads people into error.  The fact of the matter is that it does not.

As Apotheum points out, Florence shows otherwise.

It does not express the same thing as the eastern Creed.
Constantinople was an ECUMENICAL Council. That means UNIVERSAL-East, West; North, South; Southeast, Northeast; Southwest, Northwest; Up, Down, Diagonal, Sideways and any other direction you can think of. That includes, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th dimensions...

It expresses what the eastern Universal Creed expresses and adds a component that explains  conflates the relationship between the Father and the Son, and the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit.
Fixed that for you.

It does more than the eastern Creed.
It teaches heresy rather the Universal Creed.

That is true but it does not negate the eastern Creed
Of course the Creed founded on the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council cannot be negeated.

and it leads no one into any inherent error as the Orthodox claim.

The centuries the Vatican has spent digging itself further into heresy by its defense proves otherwise.

Any error caused by Filioque is a matter of poor understanding and false interpretation.
Can a poor understanding be poorly understood? Can a false interpretation be falsely interpreted?

That can happen with ANY truth of the Faith.
 
That's true. But since filioque is not a trugh of the Orhtodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, what is your point?

We all need to be well catechized or we are susceptible to error.
Indeed.

So there's not need to remove it.
that you fight so furciferously for it proves otherwise.
You are saying that it leads to error but there is no evidence in a properly catechized Catholic phronema
You are saying that your supreme pontiffs Benedcit VIII, Leo IX, Stephen IX, Eugene V and Card. Humbert of Mourmoutiers, father of the College of Cardinals were not properly catechized?

that filioque leads to error and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.
That you defend the error, or rather, to call it by its proper name, heresy, demonstrates otherwise.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 02:30:15 PM

As Apotheum points out, Florence shows otherwise.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Allow me to point out to you that Bishop Mark didn't get it then, so I am not surprised that you and Apotheun don't get it now.

When you or Apotheun begin to argue against what the Catholic Church does teach concerning a whole host of issues, perhaps I will begin to listen.

As I pointed out earlier and perhaps elsewhere, it is pretty easy for me to tell when I am talking to people who don't get it, but I am heartened because I know Orthodox monks, scholars and others who do get it and don't think it is heresy and figure I have a snowball's chance in hades of convincing those who would rather cling to their Photian schism....Thus far they are right on all counts.... :laugh:
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 07, 2011, 02:45:33 PM
Open question to any reading this thread: I am the only one who finds the tone of this conversation troubling?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 07, 2011, 02:54:22 PM
St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

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: Creed question
Post by: Mickey on April 07, 2011, 02:58:47 PM
Open question to any reading this thread: Am I the only one who finds the tone of this conversation troubling?

If you are talking about posts which insult St Mark of Ephesus while bragging about knowing Orthodox monks and scholars....then the answer is no....you are not the only one who is disturbed by the tone.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 03:26:53 PM


but there is a book by Jaroslav Pelikan called Credo which is an excellent historical survey of the various creeds in history and how they have been used over time, and how they have changed.
We are not talking about "various Creed." We are talking what is called in Greek the "Symbol of Faith," and in Arabic "The Canon/Law of Faith" or "The Constitution of the Faith." Just a tad different.

I am almost surprised that you'd think Professor Pelikan would leave out the N-C Creed and all of its permutations up to the present time.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: orthonorm on April 07, 2011, 03:40:45 PM
Open question to any reading this thread: I am the only one who finds the tone of this conversation troubling?

You ain't used to internetz:

(http://www.internetseriousbiz.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/internet-serious-business.jpg)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 04:19:47 PM

As Apotheum points out, Florence shows otherwise.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Allow me to point out to you that Bishop Mark didn't get it then, so I am not surprised that you and Apotheun don't get it now.

St. Mark was the only one who got it: even the Latins had to admit it.

When you or Apotheun begin to argue against what the Catholic Church does teach concerning a whole host of issues, perhaps I will begin to listen.
The Catholic Church doesn't teach Filioque. Apotheum, who is on the other side of the Vatican's communion from me, and I are in agreement with that.

As I pointed out earlier and perhaps elsewhere, it is pretty easy for me to tell when I am talking to people who don't get it,
LOL. Because they don't agree with you?

but I am heartened because I know Orthodox monks, scholars and others who do get it and don't think it is heresy

Then they are heretics, and an Orthodox heretic is an oxymoron.

and figure I have a snowball's chance in hades of convincing those who would rather cling to their Photian schism

You guys are the ones in schism from St. Photios, and the rest of the Fathers.

....Thus far they are right on all counts.... :laugh:
Invincible ignorance.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 04:33:50 PM


but there is a book by Jaroslav Pelikan called Credo which is an excellent historical survey of the various creeds in history and how they have been used over time, and how they have changed.
We are not talking about "various Creed." We are talking what is called in Greek the "Symbol of Faith," and in Arabic "The Canon/Law of Faith" or "The Constitution of the Faith." Just a tad different.

I am almost surprised that you'd think Professor Pelikan would leave out the N-C Creed and all of its permutations up to the present time.

I didn't say anything about leaving out heretical permutations in a historical study.  On the theological side, I do expect that he did say "I do":
Quote
The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Lutheran Confession thus: Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?
Answer. I do
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA459&dq=Orthodox+Service+book+lutheran&output=text#c_top
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 07, 2011, 05:35:35 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

I thought that the Son possesses everything 'except' what makes them persons... ?
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in common all that is proper to the divine essence, while they are distinct in the properties that are unique to their hypostaseis.  That said, the Father - as person - is the sole cause of the Son by generation, and He alone is the cause of the Spirit by ekporeusis (see St. Maximos' letter to Marinus), and so if one were to posit the idea that either the ability to generate the Son or to process the Spirit was somehow common to one or both of the other two persons within the Trinity it follows that the other person within the Trinity would possess a hypostatic property of the Father, and would also be the Father.  That is why - for Eastern Christians - the filioque is often referred to as a type of Sabellian Modalism, because it attempts to give the Father's unique hypostatic ability to process (ekporeusis) the Spirit - as sole cause within the Godhead - to the Son as a common property of the Father and the Son, which involves a confusion of the hypostaseis of the Father and the Son.  Moreover, this attempt to give a hypostatic property that is unique to the Father to the Son has the added difficult of dividing the persons of the Father and the Son from the Holy Spirit, who is not given this new common property, which is why Eastern Orthodox Christians often see the Western theory of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son - as from one principle - as the promotion of a type of ditheism.

The only viable solution to the present impasse is for the West to return to its original understanding of the filioque as described and defended in the 7th century Letter of Maximos to Marinus, then - and only then - would Orthodox objections to the Western theory of Trinitarian relations be overcome, but so far the Latin Church has been unwilling to do that, and has instead continued to defend the late medieval understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which ultimately makes the Son with the Father - as the Council of Florence says - the cause (atia) of the Spirit's subsistence.

excellent post. Thanks.

This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...
(http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 05:41:23 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

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: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 05:43:07 PM

This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...
(http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg)

And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 07, 2011, 05:45:21 PM

This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...
(http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg)

And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...

But wouldn't you agree that this illustration teaches an error?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Iconodule on April 07, 2011, 05:47:18 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 05:47:29 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

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.
So am I.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 05:50:17 PM

This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...
(http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg)

And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...

But wouldn't you agree that this illustration teaches an error?

I would indeed agree.  As I said it is much much more eye-catching than what I was taught but I generally prefer the truth to "pretty"...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 05:51:58 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 07, 2011, 05:59:38 PM

This is what I grew up with in the Roman Church...
(http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg)

And I did not, so who had the better education.  Your's looks prettier than mine....but...

But wouldn't you agree that this illustration teaches an error?

I would indeed agree.  As I said it is much much more eye-catching than what I was taught but I generally prefer the truth to "pretty"...


Sure, but to me there is real traction to Orthodox Criticisms of the Fillioque because of this kinda stuff. It's proof that erroneous teachings can enter into the Church because of the vagueness of the Fillioque. So I agree that we shouldn't have it in the creed. I see no good reason for it's inclusion.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2011, 06:11:01 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Indeed it is. But that is not the teaching of the Vatican's medieval councils.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Iconodule on April 07, 2011, 06:16:12 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 06:45:19 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it, before I begin typing text from the history of the doctrinal sessions...that will demonstrate that your assertion here is clearly false.  I am lazy so I'll wait a while...but the texts are here in my hand...bookmarked.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Iconodule on April 07, 2011, 06:57:08 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it, before I begin typing text from the history of the doctrinal sessions...that will demonstrate that your assertion here is clearly false.  I am lazy so I'll wait a while...but the texts are here in my hand...bookmarked.

Your denial is bizarre. Are you actually denying that the Council of Florence said these words?  The quotes I provided are from the text of the Council of Florence, as presented in Norman Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumanical Councils, and are reproduced on the EWTN website: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 07, 2011, 07:25:36 PM

Your denial is bizarre. Are you actually denying that the Council of Florence said these words?  The quotes I provided are from the text of the Council of Florence, as presented in Norman Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumanical Councils, and are reproduced on the EWTN website: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

There are many many more words, than the ones you've offered here,  and you've taken them entirely out of context and as you present them, they cannot but be falsely understood.  So your entire undertaking is lazy, or from some other cause, and thereby false.  Until you can, by explanation, reconcile the section I have marked in red with the later section that you chose to clip out of context, then you are presenting falsely.  In fact you cannot do that without reading the arguments presented during the council.

The "sense" in which the Father is recognized as soul source and cause of all divinity, essence and hypostasis, is not the same sense that the Latins used in recognizing Filioque.  That is clear in the records of argumentation from the council.  So to ignore ALL of that is far more bizarre than for me to claim that you've taken it so far out of context that it is impossible to get near to the truth by that snippit alone.

Quote
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

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.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Rafa999 on April 07, 2011, 07:48:49 PM
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 07, 2011, 10:24:12 PM
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 07, 2011, 10:30:51 PM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.


This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2011, 12:40:40 AM

This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 08, 2011, 12:45:19 AM
I find it interesting that this is being studiously ignored.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.


The Council of Florence and the current catechism do precisely this, so St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching.

That is not accurate at all.  That is not what I was taught formally, as Filioque, in classes that I took from a seminary, and I was taught out of that catechism among other things.  

The Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit.  That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Mary, what you were taught at a seminary is not necessarily what is the real dogmatic history of your faith tradition. All sorts of crazed ideas are now commonly taught in Romanist seminaries.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 08, 2011, 12:46:47 AM
*redundant post*
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 08, 2011, 12:51:46 AM

Your denial is bizarre. Are you actually denying that the Council of Florence said these words?  The quotes I provided are from the text of the Council of Florence, as presented in Norman Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumanical Councils, and are reproduced on the EWTN website: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

There are many many more words, than the ones you've offered here,  and you've taken them entirely out of context and as you present them, they cannot but be falsely understood.  So your entire undertaking is lazy, or from some other cause, and thereby false.  Until you can, by explanation, reconcile the section I have marked in red with the later section that you chose to clip out of context, then you are presenting falsely.  In fact you cannot do that without reading the arguments presented during the council.

The "sense" in which the Father is recognized as soul source and cause of all divinity, essence and hypostasis, is not the same sense that the Latins used in recognizing Filioque.  That is clear in the records of argumentation from the council.  So to ignore ALL of that is far more bizarre than for me to claim that you've taken it so far out of context that it is impossible to get near to the truth by that snippit alone.

Quote
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

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.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.


Mary, your quotation does not contradict Iconodule's interpretation. All it defines is that the Holy Spirit's procession is from one principle. As to this procession from one principle, the council said that it was from the Father and the Son as from one principle. And when elaborating on this, they explicitly stated that the procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle means that the Son is participating in the cause. Nothing you posted contradicts that interpretation which is essentially the plain interpretation of what he quoted.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2011, 12:52:01 AM
*redundant post*

How many of the above and whose are you referring to?

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 08, 2011, 12:54:09 AM
The "sense" in which the Father is recognized as soul source and cause of all divinity, essence and hypostasis, is not the same sense that the Latins used in recognizing Filioque.

What is clear is that they equated their concept of principle in "Father and Son as from one principle" to the Greek conception of cause, which the Fathers attributed only to the Father.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 08, 2011, 12:55:48 AM
*redundant post*

How many of the above and whose are you referring to?



LOL.

I'm referring to my own. It asked Iconodule to post his reference to the Florence quote, but when I kept reading I saw that he had already posted it later on in the thread. So I had hoped blanking my post might lead it to fade into obscurity.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 08, 2011, 12:57:12 AM

This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  :laugh:

Thank you for that.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 08, 2011, 02:18:12 AM
St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Marinus - on the Filioque    

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136  (Monachos.net)

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. 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.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

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."
Thank you.

Now, what I don't understand is how some Catholics (maybe many) try to use St. Maximus the Confessor as supporting the filioque? I've looked at the Second Council of Lyon's explanation of filioque and this is what is says (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm): "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Let me try to formulate the question as clearly as I can. On the other hand we have St. Maximus's defense of filioque which says: "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."

It is no-brainer that two interpretations of filioque are absolutely different. St. Maximos defended it because that time Romans meant Father, in their interpretation, as being the only cause of Holy Spirit. But later after Schism 2nd C. of Lyon explains it differently. With them it's clear that the Son is also the cause of Holy Spirit (it matters none whether they considered Father and Son as one principle - still Son is the cause along with Father). Latins have switched the original meaning of filioque. And since St. Maximus clearly states Latin Fathers and Cyril of Alexandria meant same thing then these Father also supported theology of God Father being the only cause of Holy Spirit.

Then how can Catholics use this saints as if they've supported the Son being the cause of Holy Spirit?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Apotheoun on April 08, 2011, 03:56:17 AM
The teaching of the Council of Florence, reiterated in the catechism, is that the Spirit "proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and one spiration." Florence continues: "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."

But, as you say, the catechesis in the RCC is not the best, and it's possibly you were taught something other than the Vatican's dogmatic teaching.
Iconodule you are correct, and the inconsistency between the processional theory proposed at the Council of Florence and the teaching of St. Maximos becomes all the more apparent when the Greek theological terms found in the two texts are compared.  Below are the two excerpted texts (i.e., Maximos' Letter to Marinus and the Decree of Florence) with the technical Greek terms in brackets:


"From this they [i.e., the Romans] showed that they themselves do not make the Son the cause [αἰτίαν] of the Spirit for they know that the Father is the one cause [αἰτίαν] of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting [γέννησιν] and the other by procession [ἐκπόρευσιν], but they show the progression [προϊέναι] through Him [i.e., the Son] and thus the unity of the essence [οὐσίας]." (1)

"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 [οὐσίαν] and His subsistent being [ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds [ἐκπορεύεται] from both eternally as from one principle [μίᾶς άρχής] and a single spiration. We declare that when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds [ἐκπορεύεσθαι] 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 [αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence [ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father." (2)


Clearly the theological position of the Latin Church at Florence had moved beyond what St. Maximos had said was acceptable in his Letter to Marinus, and - in fact - it actually embraced what he explicitly condemned.


Bibliography:

(1) A. Edward Siecienski, "The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy," (New York:  Oxford University Press, 2010), pages 80-81.

(2) 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.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Apotheoun on April 08, 2011, 04:19:01 AM
Eastern Triadology is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle (arche), source (pege), and cause (aitia) of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their subsistence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — homoousios with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word homoousios itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term homoousios involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person (hypostasis) from the Father alone by generation (gennatos), and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the hypostatic procession (ekporeusis) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person (hypostasis), and not from the divine essence (ousia), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, “Logos Apodeiktikos” I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal subsistence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the error of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the error of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Iconodule on April 08, 2011, 06:50:23 AM
Elijahmaria- When I provided the quotes, you first accused me of outright falsehood and asked me what my sources were, as if the quotes were fabricated. I then showed you the sources and you backpeddled, claiming that what you really meant was that I was taking them out of context. That's enough to prove that you have no idea what you're talking about and I won't waste any more time arguing with you.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 08, 2011, 10:06:17 AM

This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  :laugh:

Thank you for that.


Dude, you got something against Alanis Morissette?  >:(

j/k

Okay, but seriously, I still think it's ironic (not like a black fly in your chardonnay) inasmuch as elijahmaria issued a challenge to Iconodule after having ignored pretty much the same challenge from me.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2011, 10:21:48 AM

This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  :laugh:

Thank you for that.


Dude, you got something against Alanis Morissette?  >:(

j/k

Okay, but seriously, I still think it's ironic (not like a black fly in your chardonnay) inasmuch as elijahmaria issued a challenge to Iconodule after having ignored pretty much the same challenge from me.



Hate to rain on your wedding day, but that ain't irony neither.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 08, 2011, 10:53:19 AM

This is flat out falsehood.  I'll give you a chance to either document this, or correct it,

Well that's ironic ...

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.



Actually it isn't. Unless you studied rhetoric under Alanis Morissette.

That was my hardest LOL of the day so far.  :laugh:

Thank you for that.


Dude, you got something against Alanis Morissette?  >:(

j/k

Okay, but seriously, I still think it's ironic (not like a black fly in your chardonnay) inasmuch as elijahmaria issued a challenge to Iconodule after having ignored pretty much the same challenge from me.



Hate to rain on your wedding day, but that ain't irony neither.

True, it's more of an interesting coincidence.

Now I wish I had taken your good advice.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2011, 12:02:07 PM
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Only as much as the Vatican.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2011, 12:04:55 PM

Your denial is bizarre. Are you actually denying that the Council of Florence said these words?  The quotes I provided are from the text of the Council of Florence, as presented in Norman Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumanical Councils, and are reproduced on the EWTN website: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

There are many many more words, than the ones you've offered here,  and you've taken them entirely out of context and as you present them, they cannot but be falsely understood.  So your entire undertaking is lazy, or from some other cause, and thereby false.  Until you can, by explanation, reconcile the section I have marked in red with the later section that you chose to clip out of context, then you are presenting falsely.  In fact you cannot do that without reading the arguments presented during the council.

The "sense" in which the Father is recognized as soul source and cause of all divinity, essence and hypostasis, is not the same sense that the Latins used in recognizing Filioque.  That is clear in the records of argumentation from the council.  So to ignore ALL of that is far more bizarre than for me to claim that you've taken it so far out of context that it is impossible to get near to the truth by that snippit alone.

Quote
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

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.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.


Mary, your quotation does not contradict Iconodule's interpretation. All it defines is that the Holy Spirit's procession is from one principle. As to this procession from one principle, the council said that it was from the Father and the Son as from one principle. And when elaborating on this, they explicitly stated that the procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle means that the Son is participating in the cause. Nothing you posted contradicts that interpretation which is essentially the plain interpretation of what he quoted.
Add to that, no one on our side is accusing the council of Florence of consistency.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 08, 2011, 12:20:14 PM
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Only as much as the Vatican.

Well that's a relief, I was starting to think they counted more to you than the Vatican does. (Okay, now I'm being ironic.)

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: orthonorm on April 08, 2011, 01:01:35 PM
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, only the Roman Catholic Church is making the claim that it is from the Father and Son. Period.

Do Protestants count?
Only as much as the Vatican.

Well that's a relief, I was starting to think they counted more to you than the Vatican does. (Okay, now I'm being ironic.)



I thought the question was whether Protestants could even count to three. (Not sarcasm, which is a form of irony, but a more ambiguous trope of humor.)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 08, 2011, 01:05:46 PM
Mary, what you were taught at a seminary is not necessarily what is the real dogmatic history of your faith tradition. All sorts of crazed ideas are now commonly taught in Romanist seminaries.
How about monophysite seminaries? What are they like?
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Lent2010/images/warnwarn.gif) Wyatt, use of the M-word in the manner you just used it is deemed inappropriate according to board rules.  You are hereby put on warning status for the next 16 days.  If you feel this is in error, please appeal to Fr. George or FrChris.  -Schultz.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 08, 2011, 01:54:37 PM

Your denial is bizarre. Are you actually denying that the Council of Florence said these words?  The quotes I provided are from the text of the Council of Florence, as presented in Norman Tanner's Decrees of the Ecumanical Councils, and are reproduced on the EWTN website: http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

There are many many more words, than the ones you've offered here,  and you've taken them entirely out of context and as you present them, they cannot but be falsely understood.  So your entire undertaking is lazy, or from some other cause, and thereby false.  Until you can, by explanation, reconcile the section I have marked in red with the later section that you chose to clip out of context, then you are presenting falsely.  In fact you cannot do that without reading the arguments presented during the council.

The "sense" in which the Father is recognized as soul source and cause of all divinity, essence and hypostasis, is not the same sense that the Latins used in recognizing Filioque.  That is clear in the records of argumentation from the council.  So to ignore ALL of that is far more bizarre than for me to claim that you've taken it so far out of context that it is impossible to get near to the truth by that snippit alone.

Quote
For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

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.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.


Mary, your quotation does not contradict Iconodule's interpretation. All it defines is that the Holy Spirit's procession is from one principle. As to this procession from one principle, the council said that it was from the Father and the Son as from one principle. And when elaborating on this, they explicitly stated that the procession from the Father and the Son as from one principle means that the Son is participating in the cause. Nothing you posted contradicts that interpretation which is essentially the plain interpretation of what he quoted.

It certainly does if one looks at the entire record from the council where "principle" is explained. 

It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.

So to speak of essential source and cause on one hand may not be quite the same as looking at the relationships within the Trinity on the other.

You are freewheeling here some very specific and technical language as though you all really know what you are doing, yet you are looking at third and fourth hand English translations taken ENTIRELY out of any explanatory or pedagogical or even theological context and telling me that I am bizarre...

That may play well here but it would not play nearly as well among serious scholars who realize quite clearly that it is not nearly as simple or black and white as you'd like portray it to be...and I am not referencing only Catholic scholars here, I am including those who are Orthodox and who see that the Photian assertions may well not be as accurate as one might assert them to be.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 08, 2011, 07:38:26 PM
It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

Clearly stated: Father is the only source of the Son and the Spirit. Most importantly, this Great Saint was thinking he was defending something absolutely different then Catholic Church came to believe later.

In case some of you decide to answer here's my question again:
Quote
Now, what I don't understand is how some Catholics (maybe many) try to use St. Maximus the Confessor as supporting the filioque? I've looked at the Second Council of Lyon's explanation of filioque and this is what is says: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Let me try to formulate the question as clearly as I can. On the other hand we have St. Maximus's defense of filioque which says: "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."

It is no-brainer that two interpretations of filioque are absolutely different. St. Maximos defended it because that time Romans meant Father, in their interpretation, as being the only cause of Holy Spirit. But later after Schism 2nd C. of Lyon explains it differently. With them it's clear that the Son is also the cause of Holy Spirit (it matters none whether they considered Father and Son as one principle - still Son is the cause along with Father). Latins have switched the original meaning of filioque. And since St. Maximus clearly states Latin Fathers and Cyril of Alexandria meant same thing then these Father also supported theology of God Father being the only cause of Holy Spirit.

Then how can Catholics use this saints as if they've supported the Son being the cause of Holy Spirit
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 08, 2011, 07:53:28 PM
It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 08, 2011, 08:03:13 PM
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question.

None of the Catholics here responded to your question, but that doesn't mean that we didn't see it.

One thing you have to keep in mind is there are relatively few Catholics on this forum (which I think is unfortunate BTW).

I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

Clearly stated: Father is the only source of the Son and the Spirit. Most importantly, this Great Saint was thinking he was defending something absolutely different then Catholic Church came to believe later.

In case some of you decide to answer here's my question again:
Quote
Now, what I don't understand is how some Catholics (maybe many) try to use St. Maximus the Confessor as supporting the filioque?

Can you be more specific? What do those Catholics say?


Quote
Quote
I've looked at the Second Council of Lyon's explanation of filioque and this is what is says: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration."

Let me try to formulate the question as clearly as I can. On the other hand we have St. Maximus's defense of filioque which says: "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."

It is no-brainer that two interpretations of filioque are absolutely different. St. Maximos defended it because that time Romans meant Father, in their interpretation, as being the only cause of Holy Spirit. But later after Schism 2nd C. of Lyon explains it differently. With them it's clear that the Son is also the cause of Holy Spirit (it matters none whether they considered Father and Son as one principle - still Son is the cause along with Father). Latins have switched the original meaning of filioque. And since St. Maximus clearly states Latin Fathers and Cyril of Alexandria meant same thing then these Father also supported theology of God Father being the only cause of Holy Spirit.

Then how can Catholics use this saints as if they've supported the Son being the cause of Holy Spirit

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 09, 2011, 03:36:08 AM
Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
How could we miss that?

Peter J
Quote
Can you be more specific? What do those Catholics say?
1) Per Catholic teaching the cause of Holy Spirit is not only the Father but also the Sun. 2) They blame us to be in error. We say the cause of Holy Spirit is only the Father though through the sun (this last part is not added in creed but nobody denies it) 3) St. Maximus (and other Saints and Fathers you use in support of filioque) was defending #2, not #1.

Why? Why you say that these Saints were actually defenders of filioque?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 09, 2011, 03:58:48 AM
Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 09, 2011, 07:37:38 AM
Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.

Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 09, 2011, 06:09:26 PM
Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Same point was raised by Iconodule on previous page. He said "St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching" which is true. Even after quoting Council of Florence to prove this elijahmaria accused him of telling flat out falsehood. I haven't actually seen yet better "arguments" then hers.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 09, 2011, 06:33:24 PM
Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Same point was raised by Iconodule on previous page. He said "St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching" which is true. Even after quoting Council of Florence to prove this elijahmaria accused him of telling flat out falsehood. I haven't actually seen yet better "arguments" then hers.

Dear ones,

It is indeed a falsehood to take text out of context and try to "prove" a point that has been argued for centuries.  That's about as false as it gets.  Without the context of the discussion that occurred during the Greek participation in the Council of Florence there is no truth to be had in the assertions that I've seen bandied about here.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2011, 06:44:14 PM
It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 09, 2011, 06:49:44 PM
It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2011, 07:45:35 PM
It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
EP St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus are as plain in Greek condemning the heresy of the filioque as the council of Florence is in Latin in expousing it.

It's not Greek to us.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 09, 2011, 07:54:28 PM
It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
EP St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus are as plain in Greek condemning the heresy of the filioque as the council of Florence is in Latin in expousing it.

It's not Greek to us.

It isn't Latin either to you.  So what makes you think I am going to accept that you grasp its meaning in English either?...right...I don't.

As for your ad hoc infallible saints...well...I don't think I need to say more than that.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 09, 2011, 11:06:23 PM
Actually you can disregard my question and I apologize since it's been asked and answered but I did not see it.
Oh, alright. I don't see that either. Where is it?
Same point was raised by Iconodule on previous page. He said "St. Maximus' words are in fact against the Vatican teaching" which is true. Even after quoting Council of Florence to prove this elijahmaria accused him of telling flat out falsehood. I haven't actually seen yet better "arguments" then hers.

To be honest, I'm a tad surprised that you're saying we can disregard your question. I can't really complain, however: I'm not really too keen on the way this conversation has been going -- it seems to have little to do with the arguments and much to do with who-can-come-up-with-better-insults -- so I just as happy to limit my participation in it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2011, 11:50:50 PM
It is clear in the patristic record that the Father is the SOLE source of the deity.

But I daresay you'd have to search far and wide to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father....alone.
I wander why Catholics did not even see my question. I thought St. Maximus the Confessor was your main support in defending filioque. Seems you don't even know what he said. Let's repeat it since repetition is the mother of learning:

"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."

This goes quite nicely with my assertion that you'll have to look long and hard to find a Holy Father who says that the Holy Spirit is from the Father...alone.
We had a 150 gathered in one place in 381.

PS:  I could not resist my response above, given your crack about repetitions.  Also as long as you presume the "no brainer" then there is little anyone can say to you that will open that door...You have to open the door.  Best I can tell you is that they are not different as you assert.  And it's not a no-brainer to say so.  It is a fact of Catholic teaching.
According to the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils, no, it is not.

Still ignoring meaning.  Totally ignoring meaning and language on both sides.
EP St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus are as plain in Greek condemning the heresy of the filioque as the council of Florence is in Latin in expousing it.

It's not Greek to us.

It isn't Latin either to you.
Georgian, Armenian, Slavonic, Ruthenian, Klingon.....it will be the same.


So what makes you think I am going to accept that you grasp its meaning in English either?...right...I don't.
And?

As for your ad hoc infallible saints...well...I don't think I need to say more than that.
The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic has said all that needs to be said about the Pillars of Orthodoxy and their Orthodox profession of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 10, 2011, 02:46:23 AM
To be honest, I'm a tad surprised that you're saying we can disregard your question. I can't really complain, however: I'm not really too keen on the way this conversation has been going -- it seems to have little to do with the arguments and much to do with who-can-come-up-with-better-insults -- so I just as happy to limit my participation in it.
My apology to you if I insulted you. I'm as human as anybody else and sometimes I get irritated. When I saw Mary's response that is what happened. I apologize to her too.

I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 07:42:11 AM
To be honest, I'm a tad surprised that you're saying we can disregard your question. I can't really complain, however: I'm not really too keen on the way this conversation has been going -- it seems to have little to do with the arguments and much to do with who-can-come-up-with-better-insults -- so I just as happy to limit my participation in it.
My apology to you if I insulted you. I'm as human as anybody else and sometimes I get irritated. When I saw Mary's response that is what happened. I apologize to her too.

I don't remember you saying anything too insulting. But it's possible of course -- with all of back-and-forth of jabs between the Orthodox side and the Catholic side ... well it can be a little hard to keep track. (Not that I really want to keep track.  ;) )

I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?

Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Amen.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 10, 2011, 10:28:51 AM

Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Don't worry.  We are just talking here.  That does not take away from the fact that we ought to, and most likely do, care for the salvation of each others souls.  It seems to me that most of us share that without doubt...so no apology necessary and the prayers and blessings are returned...be assured.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 12:49:34 PM

Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Don't worry.  We are just talking here. 

Well the setting does make it a bit difficult to use physical violence.

That does not take away from the fact that we ought to, and most likely do, care for the salvation of each others souls.  It seems to me that most of us share that without doubt...so no apology necessary

You're too kind. Really.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 10, 2011, 12:54:45 PM

Anyways God Bless all God fearing people and God loving people Eastern Orthodox or Not

Don't worry.  We are just talking here. 

Well the setting does make it a bit difficult to use physical violence.

That does not take away from the fact that we ought to, and most likely do, care for the salvation of each others souls.  It seems to me that most of us share that without doubt...so no apology necessary

You're too kind. Really.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

A poke in the nose here is not nearly as bloody!!

thanks...

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 02:13:40 PM
thanks...

You seem to be reading a comment into my post. I didn't intend one.

On the other hand, perhaps your intention was to thank me for holding back from fulling expressing what I think of your posts. If that's the case, then you're welcome.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 10, 2011, 02:17:34 PM
thanks...

You seem to be reading a comment into my post. I didn't intend one.

On the other hand, perhaps your intention was to thank me for holding back from fulling expressing what I think of your posts. If that's the case, then you're welcome.

You elliptically presume I was talking to you...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 03:39:00 PM
Yeah, that was really presumptuous of me wasn't it.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 10, 2011, 05:01:20 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 05:33:05 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 10, 2011, 05:42:07 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 10, 2011, 06:27:40 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 10, 2011, 07:39:53 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff. Having Byzantine Catholics in the Church may well be a real help to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. Anytime you see God the Father and God the Son as parallels both processing the Holy Spirit most with a working knowledge of Neo-Platonism would notice it's similarities to the first two emanations of the One... that being the Logos and following would be the World Soul. It is true that in Neo-Platonism, the One contemplating the Logos and that reciprocated... allows the procession of the World Soul. This teaching is so inline with the Western Teaching of the Trinity and the procession of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son that it is hard to overlook as it's source. I have no doubt that Greek Fathers suggesting procession 'through' the Son are drawing from Neo-Platonist theories as well... I just see the Orthodox position on this point to be superior and one that might well be embraced by the Western Church and simply get past this notion of 'procession from the Father and the Son'...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 10, 2011, 07:46:41 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff.

I am a pre-Vatican II Roman rite Catholic who remains interested in both the Roman rite teaching and perceptions of those teachings. 

Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Perhaps it has been a while since you've seen it?  It is not as easy to come by on the Internet any longer.  You really have to search for it.

M.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 10, 2011, 08:12:33 PM
I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?
For sure the name you gave is right name. Though that's not whole story. I'll quote Filioque story before Florence and after it. If you could make different conclusion then I said I'll be more than glad to hear it.

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
Quote
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

Quote
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Before proceeding do you agree with the quotes being historical facts and particularly those that are in bold and underlined? This developments are long before Florence.


Now this is what newadvent.org says (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm):
Quote
The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.
1) Does Greek Church profess that Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son? 2) If they do and if the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son" and the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father and the Son" is the same, how can Greeks be in error?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 08:56:00 PM
I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?
For sure the name you gave is right name. Though that's not whole story. I'll quote Filioque story before Florence and after it. If you could make different conclusion then I said I'll be more than glad to hear it.

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
Quote
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

Quote
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Before proceeding do you agree with the quotes being historical facts and particularly those that are in bold and underlined? This developments are long before Florence.

Yes, I trust those historical facts. In fact, I think they are very sympathetic to the Catholic side: In the first place, the 6th-century Spaniards did not deliberately change the creed, they were simply misinformed about what it said. In the second place, the popes deserve credit for standing up to the Carolingians for no less than a couple hundred years (even though they eventually gave in with respect to the insertion of the filioque into the creed, in 1014 AD).

Now this is what newadvent.org says (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm):
Quote
The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church.
1) Does Greek Church profess that Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son? 2) If they do and if the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father through the Son" and the creed "Holy Spirit processes from the Father and the Son" is the same, how can Greeks be in error?

Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm not going to enter into a debate centered around newadvent.org.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 10, 2011, 10:20:15 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff.

I am a pre-Vatican II Roman rite Catholic who remains interested in both the Roman rite teaching and perceptions of those teachings.

You state that you're Byzantine Catholic... is that not correct?

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document. I think my reaction to it might be... if you have to clarify The Filioque, then perhaps it's far to vague to be in our creed in the way that it is?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 10:33:03 PM
Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document.

It's an excellent work. I highly recommend it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Schultz on April 10, 2011, 10:43:36 PM
Grace and Peace,

I, as a Roman Catholic, used to support the inclusion of the filioque. I thought since some of the early Church Fathers spoke of the notion as 'through the son'... that is was just and right for the Western Church to include it if that meant that Arians would be frustrated in progressing their own teaching of the Son but in all honesty I don't see 'any reason' why it should continue to be in our Creed in our modern day. If the Roman Church can completely rewrite their entire Liturgy to appeal to Protestants... I don't see any reason we couldn't return to the ancient Creed once shared between the Eastern and Western Churches? The evidence is clear that it's inclusion has allowed errors to creep into the Western Church with regard to the Western Understanding of the Trinity. I don't see why we can't simply return to the Creed that is shared between East and West...

Hi Ignatius. I tend to agree with you. What's more, I think that the insertion of the filioque into the creed has not helped us at all in our attempts to convince our Eastern brethren of the truth of the filioque, and in fact has actually tended to thwart those efforts.

Thanks Brother. I would also contend that our understanding of the Trinity has more to do with Neo-Platonism than it does the Early Church. They idea of the World Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) being a product of the One and the Logos... is our Western Teaching of the Trinity. Now, I'm not saying that it's possible that this might have been a early Church understanding... but it's not very Scriptural and does demote the Holy Spirit (i.e. World Soul) to a product of the Divine Godhead and not a equal to the Father and the Son.

This is very alien teaching to me and I am a life-long Catholic.  Have you by chance ever read The Filioque: Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Grace and Peace elijahmaria,

I think it's great that you've been shielded from this kind of stuff.

I am a pre-Vatican II Roman rite Catholic who remains interested in both the Roman rite teaching and perceptions of those teachings. 

Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

Perhaps it has been a while since you've seen it?  It is not as easy to come by on the Internet any longer.  You really have to search for it.

M.



It can be viewed at http://www.reocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/vatican_clarification.html
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 10, 2011, 11:00:08 PM
BTW, if you've read http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml you saw a a reference to the Clarification at the end, where it recommends "that the Catholic Church, as a consequence of the normative and irrevocable dogmatic value of the Creed of 381, use the original Greek text alone in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use."


http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 10, 2011, 11:09:00 PM

It can be viewed at http://www.reocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/vatican_clarification.html

Thanks!!  I had lost track of TRV's presentation.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 10, 2011, 11:19:19 PM

You state that you're Byzantine Catholic... is that not correct?

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document. I think my reaction to it might be... if you have to clarify The Filioque, then perhaps it's far to vague to be in our creed in the way that it is?


I was a Roman rite Catholic for 40 out of 60 years...give or take two years.  I did not just dump all those years and all that learning when I transferred.

Well the document is worth reading in any event.

Glad to know your moving into a Church were nothing requires clarification.  :) 

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 11, 2011, 01:08:26 AM
I might be expressing my opinions in a rude manner but I do think I see no response (real one) from Catholic users. I do not want to fight or insult anybody. But I do like things be called by their name and the name is "Filioque creed and the creed St. Maximus was defending are completely different things, and the evidence for this is multiple".

Doesn't seem like a very good name to me. What about "Filioque advanced at Florence and the filioque St. Maximus was defending are completely different things"?
For sure the name you gave is right name. Though that's not whole story. I'll quote Filioque story before Florence and after it. If you could make different conclusion then I said I'll be more than glad to hear it.

An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
Quote
The earliest use of Filioque language in a credal context is in the profession of faith formulated for the Visigoth King Reccared at the local Council of Toledo in 589. This regional council anathematized those who did not accept the decrees of the first four Ecumenical Councils (canon 11), as well as those who did not profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (canon 3). It appears that the Spanish bishops and King Reccared believed at that time that the Greek equivalent of Filioque was part of the original creed of Constantinople, and apparently understood that its purpose was to oppose Arianism by affirming the intimate relationship of the Father and Son. On Reccared’s orders, the Creed began to be recited during the Eucharist, in imitation of the Eastern practice. From Spain, the use of the Creed with the Filioque spread throughout Gaul.

Quote
Charlemagne received a translation of the decisions of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). The Council had given definitive approval to the ancient practice of venerating icons. The translation proved to be defective. On the basis of this defective translation, Charlemagne sent a delegation to Pope Hadrian I (772-795), to present his concerns. Among the points of objection, Charlemagne’s legates claimed that Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople, at his installation, did not follow the Nicene faith and profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but confessed rather his procession from the Father through the Son (Mansi 13.760). The Pope strongly rejected Charlemagne’s protest, showing at length that Tarasius and the Council, on this and other points, maintained the faith of the Fathers (ibid. 759-810). Following this exchange of letters, Charlemagne commissioned the so-called Libri Carolini (791-794), a work written to challenge the positions both of the iconoclast council of 754 and of the Council of Nicaea of 787 on the veneration of icons. Again because of poor translations, the Carolingians misunderstood the actual decision of the latter Council. Within this text, the Carolingian view of the Filioque also was emphasized again. Arguing that the word Filioque was part of the Creed of 381, the Libri Carolini reaffirmed the Latin tradition that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and rejected as inadequate the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
Before proceeding do you agree with the quotes being historical facts and particularly those that are in bold and underlined? This developments are long before Florence.

Yes, I trust those historical facts. In fact, I think they are very sympathetic to the Catholic side: In the first place, the 6th-century Spaniards did not deliberately change the creed, they were simply misinformed about what it said. In the second place, the popes deserve credit for standing up to the Carolingians for no less than a couple hundred years (even though they eventually gave in with respect to the insertion of the filioque into the creed, in 1014 AD).
I totally agree with you. I do not think either the creed was changed deliberately. I trust that information too. But then it makes 2 points quite clear: 1) Catholic Church's claim that filioque is just an extension of the original creed and elaboration of it and whatnot is false. We now know for the fact now that Latins merely thought filioque creed was the original one. Consequently it is no development of original creed but mistaken creed. 2) We also can deduct from these facts that filioque creed (procession from the Father and the Son) and original creed (procession from the Father through the Son) was not understood as the same even those times. Otherwise Charlemagne would not have compared these 2 creeds and wouldn't have accused east of having wrong creed and deviating from original Nicene-Constantinople creed. "Procession from the Father and the Son" and "Procession from the Father through the Son" was considered as 2 different creeds. Consequently council of Florence reiterated what was Catholic faith. They did not introduce anything new.

Quote
Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm not going to enter into a debate centered around newadvent.org.
I don't want to go into that debate either. I don't even know what's wrong with newadvent.org. I thought it was official Catholic website. Anyways, my point isn't dependent on newadvent. This is what I want to know: 1) When did Catholic Church announce equivalence of the 2 creed? 2) Why did they all of a sudden change their own (kept by succession of Catholic Popes and Bishops and Priests) interpretation of the creed? 3) Why did they not abandon that creed if we know for the fact it was wrongly assumed as original and right creed?

You are free to answer these particular questions. I'm not asking them to debate anything, just questions for interest.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 11, 2011, 09:36:11 AM
I totally agree with you. I do not think either the creed was changed deliberately. I trust that information too. But then it makes 2 points quite clear: 1) Catholic Church's claim that filioque is just an extension of the original creed and elaboration of it and whatnot is false. We now know for the fact now that Latins merely thought filioque creed was the original one. Consequently it is no development of original creed but mistaken creed. 2) We also can deduct from these facts that filioque creed (procession from the Father and the Son) and original creed (procession from the Father through the Son) was not understood as the same even those times. Otherwise Charlemagne would not have compared these 2 creeds and wouldn't have accused east of having wrong creed and deviating from original Nicene-Constantinople creed. "Procession from the Father and the Son" and "Procession from the Father through the Son" was considered as 2 different creeds. Consequently council of Florence reiterated what was Catholic faith. They did not introduce anything new.


How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 11, 2011, 11:36:51 AM
How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 11, 2011, 12:10:01 PM
How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?

I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 11, 2011, 01:07:52 PM
I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
I agree that I'm not an original thinker or even thinker at all. But at least give me proof that the document is flawed (we can't just rely on your words). And give me some reasoning that proves my non-original conclusion conclusion is wrong.

If you have no answer to this in your next response I'll know you just want to say something and it doesn't matter what you say.

Good luck
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 11, 2011, 06:54:29 PM
I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
I agree that I'm not an original thinker or even thinker at all. But at least give me proof that the document is flawed (we can't just rely on your words). And give me some reasoning that proves my non-original conclusion conclusion is wrong.

If you have no answer to this in your next response I'll know you just want to say something and it doesn't matter what you say.

Good luck

ahhhh...I knew when I went out this morning that I had been too strong and it conveyed a high-handedness that I did NOT mean.  Of course you are a thinker and a strong one but what you have in that document that you referenced is not enough that you can think your way through it logically.  It is not sufficient data.  I am sorry if you thought I was just slamming you to the mat.  That was NOT my intention.  I will say that if I were in your shoes, I'd have done no better with it.

As for giving you more...that takes time and work and lots of typing...and its Lent and I want to keep my focus.  Which means I'll look around for something that I can offer you in a reasonable time frame and if I cannot find just the thing then we'll have to let this hang.

Please forgive me for any insult or hurt I caused this morning!!

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 11, 2011, 08:51:41 PM

You state that you're Byzantine Catholic... is that not correct?

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document. I think my reaction to it might be... if you have to clarify The Filioque, then perhaps it's far to vague to be in our creed in the way that it is?


I was a Roman rite Catholic for 40 out of 60 years...give or take two years.  I did not just dump all those years and all that learning when I transferred.

Well the document is worth reading in any event.

Glad to know your moving into a Church were nothing requires clarification.  :) 



Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 11, 2011, 08:53:36 PM
How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?

Hi ativan,

Let me start by saying that I'm not a fan of elijahmaria. You may not have been aware of that because I've been trying to follow the old saying of "If you don't have anything nice to say ..." Hence, I rarely say anything to or about elijahmaria.

But, having said that, I also want to point out that it isn't really unusual for a Catholic or Orthodox to question or flat-out reject statements from Catholic-Orthodox dialogues. Just consider how some of your fellow Orthodox view the Balamand Agreement.

One way to look at it is that if a statement isn't rejected by some people (possibly angrily rejected), than it probably wasn't worth saying in the first place.

Anyhow, it's getting harder and harder for elijahmaria to say anything that surprises me. I say just be glad that she likes the 1995 Clarification, and don't bother trying to get her to like the 2003 statement.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 11, 2011, 08:56:21 PM
How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?

Hi ativan,

Let me start by saying that I'm not a fan of elijahmaria. You may not have been aware of that because I've been trying to follow the old saying of "If you don't have anything nice to say ..." Hence, I rarely say anything to or about elijahmaria.

But, having said that, I also want to point out that it isn't really unusual for a Catholic or Orthodox to question or flat-out reject statements from Catholic-Orthodox dialogues. Just consider how some of your fellow Orthodox view the Balamand Agreement.

One way to look at it is that if a statement isn't rejected by some people (possibly angrily rejected), than it probably wasn't worth saying in the first place.

Anyhow, it's getting harder and harder for elijahmaria to say anything that surprises me. I say just be glad that she likes the 1995 Clarification, and don't bother trying to get her to like the 2003 statement.
Which statement is that?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 11, 2011, 09:10:12 PM
Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 11, 2011, 09:13:04 PM
How long has it been since you've read a good history of the Creed written by a Catholic?   I read one two days ago and although the quotes that you mention have truth in them they are misleading in that they leave you with the impression that filioque was unknown in east or west prior to the dates mentioned.  That is false.  It is also false to presume that the west believed the filioque to be false or did so once they figured out it was an "accident."  Read that whole document again and show me where the west said "Oooops!!" we had and accident and filioque must be removed because it was an accidental heresy. 
 
Just to keep it brief:  Do you really think that if matters were this simple someone else might not have already arrived at your conclusions, with data far more reliable and fully presented than the
O-C Consultation's Condensed Version of Creeds East and West?

At any rate this part of the discussion has now gone down a Rabbit Hole and is about to embark on a long journey through Wonderland...unless it is brought back to reality a bit.

You all really ought to pay more attention to the formal Filioque: Clarification before you assume that you can parse the truth out of what the North American Consultation has written in one of their very worst documents yet with respect to history or theology.  That is what they could agree on.  It does not mean that it is the best version of the facts or the truth.

M.
Give the proof of what you say. The article I linked was an agreed upon statement by both Orthodox and Catholics and Peter has not doubted veracity of it. It clearly states what I've said. I haven't added or subtracted anything. Do you not agree on my conclusion which is based on this article? Why? Or do you doubt what's in article?

Hi ativan,

Let me start by saying that I'm not a fan of elijahmaria. You may not have been aware of that because I've been trying to follow the old saying of "If you don't have anything nice to say ..." Hence, I rarely say anything to or about elijahmaria.

But, having said that, I also want to point out that it isn't really unusual for a Catholic or Orthodox to question or flat-out reject statements from Catholic-Orthodox dialogues. Just consider how some of your fellow Orthodox view the Balamand Agreement.

One way to look at it is that if a statement isn't rejected by some people (possibly angrily rejected), than it probably wasn't worth saying in the first place.

Anyhow, it's getting harder and harder for elijahmaria to say anything that surprises me. I say just be glad that she likes the 1995 Clarification, and don't bother trying to get her to like the 2003 statement.
Which statement is that?

"An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC
October 25, 2003
The Filioque: A Church-Dividing Issue?"
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 11, 2011, 09:31:59 PM

You state that you're Byzantine Catholic... is that not correct?

Quote
Are you familiar with The Filioque:Clarification from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity?

I"m actually not familiar with the document. I think my reaction to it might be... if you have to clarify The Filioque, then perhaps it's far to vague to be in our creed in the way that it is?


I was a Roman rite Catholic for 40 out of 60 years...give or take two years.  I did not just dump all those years and all that learning when I transferred.

Well the document is worth reading in any event.

Glad to know your moving into a Church were nothing requires clarification.  :) 



Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.

I had a wonderful teacher as a child in grade school and middle school...or those middle years...since there was no middle school back then.  And he coached me through the changes that came after the Second Vatican Council and he advised me to hold on to my hat because the ride was going to get very bumpy.  He said that councils bring out the best and the worst from the woodwork.  He said that if it ever seemed that the worst was going to win, to just be patient a little longer and things would start to come around and the best would shine through once more.  So I am still here and frankly I've been fortunate to be surrounded by some pretty decent Roman rite parishes and eastern Catholic parishes and Orthodox parishes.  So I don't worry much about not liking this or that.  I just wait till the good comes around and then I say "thank ya Jesus!!"...well...not that really but I am grateful and say so.

We all have different paths to walk.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ignatius on April 11, 2011, 09:34:12 PM
Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 11, 2011, 10:35:25 PM
Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.

It's getting a bit late for me tonight, but if I have some time tomorrow I'll try to say a few words about why I don't think things were very good before VCII.

Blessings,
Peter.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 13, 2011, 01:08:54 AM
I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
I agree that I'm not an original thinker or even thinker at all. But at least give me proof that the document is flawed (we can't just rely on your words). And give me some reasoning that proves my non-original conclusion conclusion is wrong.

If you have no answer to this in your next response I'll know you just want to say something and it doesn't matter what you say.

Good luck

ahhhh...I knew when I went out this morning that I had been too strong and it conveyed a high-handedness that I did NOT mean.  Of course you are a thinker and a strong one but what you have in that document that you referenced is not enough that you can think your way through it logically.  It is not sufficient data.  I am sorry if you thought I was just slamming you to the mat.  That was NOT my intention.  I will say that if I were in your shoes, I'd have done no better with it.

As for giving you more...that takes time and work and lots of typing...and its Lent and I want to keep my focus.  Which means I'll look around for something that I can offer you in a reasonable time frame and if I cannot find just the thing then we'll have to let this hang.

Please forgive me for any insult or hurt I caused this morning!!

M.
Apology's accepted. But I didn't really take it as an insult. Besides I know I'm not moron :) When I agreed with you I meant whatever good I got it's not mine and it's God's gift. Denying God's gift is not humility but stupidity but same is true when appropriating it.

Yes please, provide me with more information (links would be OK) that proves your point and disproves mine. I'm not saying I can't be wrong but at the same time I don't see otherwise based on however insufficient data may be provided in those articles. I'm more then glad to hear anything. I don't try to merely refuse everything Catholic, though I do like to see something supporting Catholic statements.

Thanks
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 13, 2011, 10:17:10 AM
I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.

In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque.  The chances of that really are pretty slim.

You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.

M.
I agree that I'm not an original thinker or even thinker at all. But at least give me proof that the document is flawed (we can't just rely on your words). And give me some reasoning that proves my non-original conclusion conclusion is wrong.

If you have no answer to this in your next response I'll know you just want to say something and it doesn't matter what you say.

Good luck

ahhhh...I knew when I went out this morning that I had been too strong and it conveyed a high-handedness that I did NOT mean.  Of course you are a thinker and a strong one but what you have in that document that you referenced is not enough that you can think your way through it logically.  It is not sufficient data.  I am sorry if you thought I was just slamming you to the mat.  That was NOT my intention.  I will say that if I were in your shoes, I'd have done no better with it.

As for giving you more...that takes time and work and lots of typing...and its Lent and I want to keep my focus.  Which means I'll look around for something that I can offer you in a reasonable time frame and if I cannot find just the thing then we'll have to let this hang.

Please forgive me for any insult or hurt I caused this morning!!

M.
Apology's accepted. But I didn't really take it as an insult. Besides I know I'm not moron :) When I agreed with you I meant whatever good I got it's not mine and it's God's gift. Denying God's gift is not humility but stupidity but same is true when appropriating it.

Yes please, provide me with more information (links would be OK) that proves your point and disproves mine. I'm not saying I can't be wrong but at the same time I don't see otherwise based on however insufficient data may be provided in those articles. I'm more then glad to hear anything. I don't try to merely refuse everything Catholic, though I do like to see something supporting Catholic statements.

Thanks

Good on the first point.  All I was really saying was that if your point were accurate then it would be likely that I would have heard something like it before or that it would be a point that is grappled with more directly historically.  But in the way that you have phrased it all, it has not appeared. 

As to your openness to being proved wrong...I don't know if I can do that directly.  I think your whole approach is off so from my perspective it would be like trying to prove to you that I don't or did not beat my children, if I never had any children.

So there are two things at work: one being your presumptions are off because two, there is insufficient data there in the document to make it clear that you are reading something in to it that is not really intended or cannot stand against the actual history.

At any rate, I will keep my eyes open to see what I can see that might help.  You realize that I see how rigidly you are convinced at the moment so I don't know that I will be staying up nights looking for ways to change your mind.  :)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 14, 2011, 12:36:25 AM
So there are two things at work: one being your presumptions are off because two, there is insufficient data there in the document to make it clear that you are reading something in to it that is not really intended or cannot stand against the actual history.

At any rate, I will keep my eyes open to see what I can see that might help.  You realize that I see how rigidly you are convinced at the moment so I don't know that I will be staying up nights looking for ways to change your mind.  :)
I'll be looking forward to new data. Convincing me is not going to be hard if you present convincing data. I can assure you one thing: I may be stubborn and say "I don't believe what you say and I don't want to believe it; I'm firmly convinced you are wrong" but I will not say this and that data doesn't support your point. I can even imagine certain new data that would invalidate my reasoning but I need to see it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 14, 2011, 10:26:37 AM
So there are two things at work: one being your presumptions are off because two, there is insufficient data there in the document to make it clear that you are reading something in to it that is not really intended or cannot stand against the actual history.

At any rate, I will keep my eyes open to see what I can see that might help.  You realize that I see how rigidly you are convinced at the moment so I don't know that I will be staying up nights looking for ways to change your mind.  :)
I'll be looking forward to new data. Convincing me is not going to be hard if you present convincing data. I can assure you one thing: I may be stubborn and say "I don't believe what you say and I don't want to believe it; I'm firmly convinced you are wrong" but I will not say this and that data doesn't support your point. I can even imagine certain new data that would invalidate my reasoning but I need to see it.

Thank you.  That is good news indeed...I wish I had handy such proofs as would convince you.  Some of the "proof" would have to come from inside you.  In other words you'd have to be willing to accept that in the Roman rite history of Filioque that there is a distinction made between source or cause that is ultimate, and source and cause that is mediate.  God the Father been the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit and the Son being the mediate source or cause.  In today's plain language, I would say that the Father is the Ultimate Source and Cause of the divinity, while the Son is the Mediate Cause, with the Father, of the Holy Spirit.

This is the meaning that one finds at Florence, so that the Mediate Cause does fall in line with the Holy Fathers including St. Maximos the Confessor and St Gregory Nyssa.

I am not sure you would accept that at all, and there is no "proof" for that sort of thing save to say that is the distinction that the Church has made all along.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 15, 2011, 04:41:05 PM
Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.

It's getting a bit late for me tonight, but if I have some time tomorrow I'll try to say a few words about why I don't think things were very good before VCII.

Blessings,
Peter.

Sorry, I still haven't made good on that. But I was just thinking, on a related note, that one reason I admire Orthodoxy is that it seems to have, in some regards, the best of both (pre- and post- Vatican II Catholicism).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 15, 2011, 05:15:38 PM
^Thank you.  For those among Orthodox who disparage the post VII altogether, VII actually re-established the Epiklesis in the NO, which is no insignificant matter, and in my opinion is a move "toward" the Orthodox Church, although since then there have been a couple of moves away, such as making the metochia churches of the patriarchates in Rome into papal basilicas.    
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 16, 2011, 04:57:15 AM
Thank you.  That is good news indeed...I wish I had handy such proofs as would convince you.  Some of the "proof" would have to come from inside you.
If it has to come from inside of me then inside of me tells it's wrong. I could tell you exactly same thing: If you want to see how its wrong it has to come inside of you.

Quote
In other words you'd have to be willing to accept that in the Roman rite history of Filioque that there is a distinction made between source or cause that is ultimate, and source and cause that is mediate.  God the Father been the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit and the Son being the mediate source or cause.  In today's plain language, I would say that the Father is the Ultimate Source and Cause of the divinity, while the Son is the Mediate Cause, with the Father, of the Holy Spirit.

This is the meaning that one finds at Florence, so that the Mediate Cause does fall in line with the Holy Fathers including St. Maximos the Confessor and St Gregory Nyssa.
Could you point a quote whereever these Saints made distinctions in ultimate and mediate cause? And secondly what is ultimate cause and what is mediate cause? An how do they differ?

Quote
I am not sure you would accept that at all, and there is no "proof" for that sort of thing save to say that is the distinction that the Church has made all along.

M.
When you say "Church" what you mean, Catholic Church or Orthodox Church, since Orthodox Church has never made such distinction with regards to the cause of Holy Spirit?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 08:05:54 AM

Quote
In other words you'd have to be willing to accept that in the Roman rite history of Filioque that there is a distinction made between source or cause that is ultimate, and source and cause that is mediate.  God the Father been the ultimate source of the Holy Spirit and the Son being the mediate source or cause.  In today's plain language, I would say that the Father is the Ultimate Source and Cause of the divinity, while the Son is the Mediate Cause, with the Father, of the Holy Spirit.

This is the meaning that one finds at Florence, so that the Mediate Cause does fall in line with the Holy Fathers including St. Maximos the Confessor and St Gregory Nyssa.
Could you point a quote whereever these Saints made distinctions in ultimate and mediate cause? And secondly what is ultimate cause and what is mediate cause? An how do they differ?

When I said Church, I meant the Church of my Baptism.  If I don't designate Orthodox or Orthodoxy, I am generally referring to the Church of my Baptism, that Catholic Church.

A mediate cause is one such as that which would come through the Son of God.  We refer to Him, in another context, as mediator of all graces [all divine caritas].  So that the Father is understood as the ultimate authority or author of all graces, while all graces are mediated by the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that flow of grace or divine caritas then can be said to have a primary or ultimate source and a mediate source through all eternity, since divine caritas is not bound by temporality.

Do the Fathers need to speak in these explicit terms in order for us to see that they understood this relationship?

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ativan on April 16, 2011, 03:43:28 PM
A mediate cause is one such as that which would come through the Son of God.  We refer to Him, in another context, as mediator of all graces [all divine caritas].  So that the Father is understood as the ultimate authority or author of all graces, while all graces are mediated by the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that flow of grace or divine caritas then can be said to have a primary or ultimate source and a mediate source through all eternity, since divine caritas is not bound by temporality.
Your reasoning is called circular. You say the Son is mediate cause. And mediate cause means the cause which comes though the Son. Same circular reasoning you apply to ultimate cause. You did not make any distinction at all. What does it mean to be a cause?

Quote
Do the Fathers need to speak in these explicit terms in order for us to see that they understood this relationship?

M.
Then where do they talk about ultimate and mediate cause in implicit terms?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 16, 2011, 04:32:31 PM
A mediate cause is one such as that which would come through the Son of God.  We refer to Him, in another context, as mediator of all graces [all divine caritas].  So that the Father is understood as the ultimate authority or author of all graces, while all graces are mediated by the Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and that flow of grace or divine caritas then can be said to have a primary or ultimate source and a mediate source through all eternity, since divine caritas is not bound by temporality.
Your reasoning is called circular. You say the Son is mediate cause. And mediate cause means the cause which comes though the Son. Same circular reasoning you apply to ultimate cause. You did not make any distinction at all. What does it mean to be a cause?

Quote
Do the Fathers need to speak in these explicit terms in order for us to see that they understood this relationship?

M.
Then where do they talk about ultimate and mediate cause in implicit terms?

That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

PS: Faith is by definition tautological and rooted in the authority of the Church, which takes it reality from the authority of the Father...which is what gives you a HUGE clue as to the meaning of the Father as auctoris...[author, authority].  The Son then mediates that authority, by the power of the Holy Spirit, both in time and outside of time.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2011, 06:16:29 PM
Since Vatican II, a great deal of effort has been taken to transform Roman Catholicism... to make it, to a larger extent, less intellectual. I've seen it as a kind of unwinding of years past... At first, I was content to simply ignore these changes but Orthodoxy has helped me to understand that there is an alternative to watching the Western Church deconstruct itself, it's dogmas and it's Liturgy not by retreating into Traditionalist Catholic groups but to enter into Eastern Orthodoxy and experience a tradition which still has it legs to stand upon. When I think about it, I'm a better Roman Catholic in the Orthodox Church than I am in many of the Roman Catholic Parishes around me.

While it may not be pleasant to watch, I believe that the changes brought about by Vatican II were needed. (I don't mean every single last one was needed, just overall.) Also, I think that a lot of the problems we have today would have come about even without the council -- and may very well have been worse.

One other thought: it's been 45 years (and a few months) since Vatican II ended. That's not really a very long time. I'm hopeful that people a couple centuries from now will look back on Vatican II as the start a very successful reform.

I hope you are correct. I just need a place where I can do the spiritual work of the ancient Church. I can't speak for every Catholic Chuch but in America the Roman Catholic Church has no sense of itself. Some parishes are no different than any other liberal Methodist or liberal Episcopalian Parish and have absolutely no ties to the ancient Church of Chirst. A few near me are more faithful but still seem at odds with Rome. I honestly believe I'm a better Catholic in the Orthodox Church. I don't want to be strugging with my own Parish, I want to be struggling with my own sin. I don't think the modern Catholic Church is a nurturing place for the good fight. I hate to say that but I've come to believe that they Western Church is largely gone and I do blame Vatican II for that.

It's getting a bit late for me tonight, but if I have some time tomorrow I'll try to say a few words about why I don't think things were very good before VCII.

Blessings,
Peter.

Sorry, I still haven't made good on that.

Alright, here's what I've come up with so far:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35349.msg557244.html#msg557244
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 17, 2011, 07:15:56 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2011, 09:31:10 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 17, 2011, 09:38:32 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?

I'm not here to play games with you.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2011, 09:48:01 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?

I'm not here to play games with you.

Your easy theology is hardly a game!!

And since that is your level best...I'll have to pass.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 17, 2011, 09:57:45 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this. 
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 17, 2011, 10:09:33 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.

From whom they receive their Being?....

The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?

You mean like:

Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flow
Praise Him all lesser gods here below....

Like dat?

I'm not here to play games with you.

Well said deusveritasest. In my humble opinion there's already been too much game playing around here lately.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 17, 2011, 11:09:43 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this.  

Yes.  I jested with my comment on the Fountainhead but I am not joking when I challenge the idea that the Father "performs the actions from which the Son and Spirit receive their Being"....Filioque is less dangerous an idea than that one.

I find it ludicrous to challenge the Catholic Filioque by using phrasing that is as clearly irresponsible as saying that the Father is responsible for the Son and Holy Spirit in their "Being"...So rather than be sharp, I joked through it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 18, 2011, 09:07:39 AM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?

How does one come to understand such a mystery!!

It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
But what sense does that make if all Three are eternal? Hence elijahmaria's point that it is a mystery. There is nothing "simple" about the Godhead.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 18, 2011, 01:25:32 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this.  

Yes.  I jested with my comment on the Fountainhead but I am not joking when I challenge the idea that the Father "performs the actions from which the Son and Spirit receive their Being"....Filioque is less dangerous an idea than that one.

I find it ludicrous to challenge the Catholic Filioque by using phrasing that is as clearly irresponsible as saying that the Father is responsible for the Son and Holy Spirit in their "Being"...So rather than be sharp, I joked through it.
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father. This would be a far graver heresy than the allegedly heretical filioque. It seems, in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a far greater tendency to overanalyze and draw distinctions between the Three Persons of the Trinity. Some of this stuff doesn't sound like something that any human can know for certain this side of the grave.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 18, 2011, 02:17:49 PM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 18, 2011, 02:28:52 PM
That's a very good question!!  What does it mean to say that the Father is "cause" of the divinity?How does one come to understand such a mystery!!
It's very simple. It means that He is fountainhead who performs the actions (Begetting and Spirating) from which the Son and the Spirit receive their Being.
From whom they receive their Being?....The Fountainhead...as in Ayn Rand?You mean like:Praise Father God from whom all Baby Gods flowPraise Him all lesser gods here below....
Like dat?

Maria, what you say here is very disturbing to me.  Before St. Gregory the Theologion states that we must not pry too deeply into the Trinity, He affirms that the Father is the Arche (Fountainhead) of the Trinity.   The fathers agree on this, even St. Augustine, who is the assumed inspiration for filioque, but also made it clear that the Father is the cause both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  I surely hope that you jest in this.  

Yes.  I jested with my comment on the Fountainhead but I am not joking when I challenge the idea that the Father "performs the actions from which the Son and Spirit receive their Being"....Filioque is less dangerous an idea than that one.

I find it ludicrous to challenge the Catholic Filioque by using phrasing that is as clearly irresponsible as saying that the Father is responsible for the Son and Holy Spirit in their "Being"...So rather than be sharp, I joked through it.
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father. This would be a far graver heresy than the allegedly heretical filioque. It seems, in Eastern Orthodoxy, there is a far greater tendency to overanalyze and draw distinctions between the Three Persons of the Trinity. Some of this stuff doesn't sound like something that any human can know for certain this side of the grave.

It is the whole phrase "cause of their being" that creates problems.  The Fathers don't even say this.

Source is better than cause but cause is fine when understood as source or font of the Triune divinity.

But it must stop short there and not extend to any talk of cause for being or essence...
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 03:00:54 PM
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 18, 2011, 03:14:58 PM
But what sense does that make if all Three are eternal?

"Eternally begotten"
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 18, 2011, 03:15:28 PM
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.

LOL
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 18, 2011, 03:17:38 PM
To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology.

Yeah, right, just like "one nature of God the Word Incarnate" was dangerous terminology.  ::)

"Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

Nope, not when the Father is eternally begetting the Son and eternally spirating the Spirit.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 18, 2011, 03:19:59 PM
It is the whole phrase "cause of their being" that creates problems.  The Fathers don't even say this.

Source is better than cause but cause is fine when understood as source or font of the Triune divinity.

But it must stop short there and not extend to any talk of cause for being or essence...

Good grief. Obviously if I am acknowledging that the Father is without origin, and that the Son and the Spirit are homoousios with Him, and take and subsist in His Essence, then I am not meaning by "Being" that the Father is generating the Essence. What should be clear that I was meaning was that the Father is the cause of the existence of the Son and the Spirit as hypostases.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 18, 2011, 03:22:31 PM
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
LOL. Whenever anyone begins a sentence with this phrase, you know that the following statement is going to be offensive.  :D
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 18, 2011, 04:24:14 PM
But what sense does that make if all Three are eternal?
"Eternally begotten"
Okay, and what does "eternally begotten" mean? And don't say "it's a mystery" because if, as you say, it is so easy to parse Trinitarian theology then you should have no problem explaining this.

Yeah, right, just like "one nature of God the Word Incarnate" was dangerous terminology.  ::)
It was and is. Chalcedon settled it, but that's another discussion altogether.

Nope, not when the Father is eternally begetting the Son and eternally spirating the Spirit.
What does it mean to eternally beget or to eternally spirate? What proof do we have that this is a role God the Father alone possesses?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 18, 2011, 04:24:22 PM
No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
What part did I "swallow whole" that you take issue with? I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead (or even worse, perpetuate schism over it) since it will forever be a mystery to us until we enter into eternal life.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Saint Iaint on April 18, 2011, 05:03:39 PM

We all have different paths to walk.


Eventually, we all walk the paths we choose... don't we?


†IC XC†
†NI KA†
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 18, 2011, 05:20:23 PM
I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 18, 2011, 06:02:29 PM
I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 19, 2011, 12:03:11 PM
I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Pete is playing games with you. Don't get sucked in.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 19, 2011, 01:50:00 PM
I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Pete is playing games with you.

No, I'm not.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: orthonorm on April 19, 2011, 01:54:24 PM
I agree. To me, saying that the Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit sounds like dangerous terminology. "Cause" implies a beginning, which suggests that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not eternal and thus both subordinate to the Father.

No offense intended, but I get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria.
LOL. Whenever anyone begins a sentence with this phrase, you know that the following statement is going to be offensive.  :D

I really don't follow this thread. No kidding on the rhetoric.

But hey, noticed you had returned. Welcome back.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 19, 2011, 02:03:52 PM
I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead

That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Pete is playing games with you. Don't get sucked in.
I think Pete is a closet EO.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 19, 2011, 03:58:32 PM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 19, 2011, 04:18:15 PM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Only to enemies of our Church. Those within the Church read and interpret things with the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 19, 2011, 07:27:17 PM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Only to enemies of our Church. Those within the Church read and interpret things with the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.
Well stated.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Father H on April 19, 2011, 10:14:28 PM
I think it is ridiculous to split hairs over the nature of the Godhead
That's fine, as long as you don't change your mind two minutes later.
Why would I do that?
Pete is playing games with you. Don't get sucked in.
I think Pete is a closet EO.

What is this, Pete's Inquisition?:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyQjiXSlU_w

I didn't know Peter was a closet member of the Entrepreneurs' Organization.  But in all seriousness, we would be happy to have him over here at the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.   Come on over Peter.  We have no Inquisition here.    
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 19, 2011, 10:54:49 PM
Come on over Peter.  

Oh, you'd like that wouldn't you?  ;D

Come to think of it, maybe Wyatt would like see that too, judging by some of his recent statements.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 20, 2011, 12:11:15 AM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Only to enemies of our Church. Those within the Church read and interpret things with the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.
Well stated.
(http://images1.fanpop.com/images/quiz/29859_1215613217452_493_300.jpg)
better stated.

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 20, 2011, 03:45:43 AM
Come to think of it, maybe Wyatt would like see that too, judging by some of his recent statements.
I never want to see someone apostatize from Christ's Church.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Iconodule on April 20, 2011, 10:00:35 AM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Only to enemies of our Church. Those within the Church read and interpret things with the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.
Well stated.
(http://images1.fanpop.com/images/quiz/29859_1215613217452_493_300.jpg)
better stated.

By another filioque supporter  ;)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 20, 2011, 11:19:39 AM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Only to enemies of our Church. Those within the Church read and interpret things with the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.
Well stated.
(http://images1.fanpop.com/images/quiz/29859_1215613217452_493_300.jpg)
better stated.

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).
Good thing we don't reject his words. :) I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?

BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 02:27:49 PM
those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

And that's in every Catholic bible. It's only in the creed that we (some Catholics, not all) say "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 02:37:22 PM
Come to think of it, maybe Wyatt would like see that too, judging by some of his recent statements.
I never want to see someone apostatize from Christ's Church.

I'm glad to hear that; however I don't believe that converting (reaffiliating) between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is apostasy, as I've said on previous occasions, e.g.

Hey, just because I think that those who do not have an Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity worship a different god doesn't mean everyone else does.

I'm not entirely clear on how you became the focal point of the discussion; but certainly I agree with your statement: I see no reason to think that Cleveland bases his beliefs on your beliefs. (That Cleveland regards conversion from Orthodoxy to Catholicism as apostasy was an inference I made from his statement: "Even if one is very serious about leaving - i.e. taking catechism classes in another faith, talking about re-baptism, etc. - I still think they can avoid leaving and not be judged as apostates." I don't see any reference to you, ozgeorge, in that statement. Do you?)

Oh, well, there's a relief. I'm not an apostate, I'm a just a schismatic heretic....phew! :D

Don't mention it. Incidentally, if you'd like further proof that RCs regard you as a fellow Christian, I'd refer you to the documents of Vatican II.

God bless,
Peter.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 20, 2011, 03:44:21 PM
those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).

And that's in every Catholic bible. It's only in the creed that we (some Catholics, not all) say "Who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
And it is precisely that disconnect between the Vatican's creed and the Bible it received that keeps it out of the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 20, 2011, 03:52:05 PM
^Ok, we have officially entered the twilight zone.  All of the church fathers affirm that the Father is the cause of the Son and Holy Spirit.  If you are labeling this a heresy you are anathematizing the entire church of the first millenium.  "The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit" (St. John of Damascus Orth. Faith 1.12).
But isn't the filioque nothing but the "ENTER" sign above the doorway into the twilight zone (and more nepharious regions)?
Only to enemies of our Church. Those within the Church read and interpret things with the mind and heart of the Church, which is the mind and heart of Christ.
Well stated.
(http://images1.fanpop.com/images/quiz/29859_1215613217452_493_300.jpg)
better stated.

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).
Good thing we don't reject his words. :)
Indeed. Dante states your views quite fine.

I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?
It's after the verse that says "The Virgin is not the incarnation of the Holy Spirit," right before the verse that says "the Holy Spirit did not give the Quran to Muhammad."

and why "anyway whatsoever"?  At present your Vatican won't let the filioque be used with ekporeusis.  Maybe you should take it up with them.

BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?
About the same chances of the Mormons believing the patristic doctrine of the preexistence of souls (Origin was famous for that).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 04:10:25 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 20, 2011, 04:22:56 PM
BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?
If he believes one goes to hell for professing filioque that is pretty sad.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 20, 2011, 04:22:56 PM
I'm glad to hear that; however I don't believe that converting (reaffiliating) between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is apostasy, as I've said on previous occasions, e.g.
Are you considering becoming Eastern Orthodox?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 20, 2011, 05:16:54 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 09:11:58 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

No, not a straw man. Take a look at what he was responding to:

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).
Good thing we don't reject his words. :) I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 09:18:31 PM
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

Hmm ... I wonder if there's some way that you and elijahmaria could balance-each-other-out. (She believes that Catholic and Orthodox teachings are the same, and that we should discontinue the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and just resume communion right now.)

Of course, you're really making me look bad, inasmuch as I recently said that it seemed like you were just swallowing whole whatever elijahmaria said. :-[
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 09:30:01 PM
If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

Hmm ... I wonder if there's some way that you and elijahmaria could balance-each-other-out. (She believes that Catholic and Orthodox teachings are the same, and that we should discontinue the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and just resume communion right now.)

Of course, you're really making me look bad, inasmuch as I recently said that it seemed like you were just swallowing whole whatever elijahmaria said. :-[
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 10:25:40 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 10:26:54 PM
If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

Hmm ... I wonder if there's some way that you and elijahmaria could balance-each-other-out. (She believes that Catholic and Orthodox teachings are the same, and that we should discontinue the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues and just resume communion right now.)

Of course, you're really making me look bad, inasmuch as I recently said that it seemed like you were just swallowing whole whatever elijahmaria said. :-[

Oh the delicious irony.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 20, 2011, 10:28:48 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.

No, not a straw man. Take a look at what he was responding to:

those who reject Christ's very words can claim His mind and heart. And He said "Who proceeds from the Father." (that's a period there).
Good thing we don't reject his words. :) I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever." LOL. Can you find one?

It is because the idea that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in any sense was not the point that Isa was trying to make.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 10:30:57 PM
If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

That doesn't even make any sense (unless you used to post here with a different username) because according to your profile you've only been on this forum since March 28, 2010.

But in any case, your posts have caused me to seriously consider staying away from OC-net. Your latest hostility is just one more example of the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. It appears that you either don't know that this is a Christian forum, or you don't understand what that means.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 10:36:14 PM
Oh the delicious irony.

Forgive me for being redundant, but it's actually pretty predictable in view of what I quoted earlier:

Dear elijahmaria and J Michael,

You might say that you're only jesting or only being a smartass, but may I be so bold as to suggest that you read the following quote from C. S. Lewis, and see if you don't fit the description:

Quote
Certainly I have met with little of the fabled odium theologicum from convinced members of communions different from my own. Hostility has come more from borderline people whether within the Church of England or without it: men not exactly obedient to any
 communion.* This I find curiously consoling. It is at her centre, where her truest children dwell, that each communion is really closest to every other in spirit, if not in doctrine. And this suggests that at the centre of each 
there is something, or a Someone, who against all divergences of belief, all differences of temperament, all memories of mutual persecution, speaks with
 the same voice.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 20, 2011, 10:44:19 PM

But in any case, your posts have caused me to seriously consider staying away from OC-net. Your latest hostility is just one more example of the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. It appears that you either don't know that this is a Christian forum, or you don't understand what that means.

I have done my best to ignore you.  Asking you to stop taking gratuitous pot shots at me is not hostile, and that sort of baseless accusation is what I mean when I say your remarks have been gratuitous.

Have a blessed Pascha, Peter.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: orthonorm on April 20, 2011, 10:55:59 PM
If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

That doesn't even make any sense (unless you used to post here with a different username) because according to your profile you've only been on this forum since March 28, 2010.

But in any case, your posts have caused me to seriously consider staying away from OC-net. Your latest hostility is just one more example of the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. It appears that you either don't know that this is a Christian forum, or you don't understand what that means.

Actually the bolded portion of your statement about statements not making sense does not make sense. And no that is not irony.

If she bothers you, can't you just not take her posts to heart? The dramatic threat to leave a forum or newsgroup over some back and forth with someone is cliched and boring.

Just don't engage with the person, if it causes you that much grief.

And frankly I fail to see the hostility you speak of in her posts. They are just direct and pointed IMHO.

While the italicized part of your post is patronizing and insulting.

Whether you like elijahmaria or her posts is irrelevant. She is an active poster and certainly knows this forum is about Christianity and demonstrates consistently more than a pedestrian knowledge of the history, beliefs, disagreements, etc. of the Church.

RCs have it rough around here at times. Dunno why she or Papist post as much or at all, but to question their sincerity to Christianity seems way out of line.


EDIT: Posted simultaneously with EM's above. Didn't mean to pile on as such.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 10:58:53 PM
Asking you to stop taking gratuitous pot shots at me is not hostile,

Accusing me of taking "gratuitous pot shots" at you is offensive. Many of your posts have been hostile.

Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 11:00:31 PM
Actually the bolded portion of your statement about statements not making sense does not make sense. And no that is not irony.

If she bothers you, can't you just not take her posts to heart? The dramatic threat to leave a forum or newsgroup over some back and forth with someone is cliched and boring.

Just don't engage with the person, if it causes you that much grief.

And frankly I fail to see the hostility you speak of in her posts. They are just direct and pointed IMHO.

While the italicized part of your post is patronizing and insulting.

Whether you like elijahmaria or her posts is irrelevant. She is an active poster and certainly knows this forum is about Christianity and demonstrates consistently more than a pedestrian knowledge of the history, beliefs, disagreements, etc. of the Church.

RCs have it rough around here at times. Dunno why she or Papist post as much or at all, but to question their sincerity to Christianity seems way out of line.


EDIT: Posted simultaneously with EM's above. Didn't mean to pile on as such.

Thank you for your opinion. However, I think I'm capable of making my own decisions.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 20, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
The dramatic threat to leave a forum or newsgroup over some back and forth with someone is cliched and boring.

At least I have a pretty good idea now what you think of me.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 21, 2011, 02:39:30 AM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that? Again, where is the humor here?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 21, 2011, 02:43:05 AM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 21, 2011, 06:47:38 AM
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 21, 2011, 09:45:52 AM

What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

That bears repeating.

I have a question for you in response, that presupposes eventual resumption of communion: 

Given the weight that both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church give to tradition, is it possible for Eastern Orthodoxy to concede filioque to the Latin rite and ritual after all these centuries.

Orthodoxy might wish to make perspicacious reminders of the history and ask for an apology from the west for having changed the Creed without the agreement and consultation the eastern bishops.

On the other hand there will be the desire on the part of EO to continue on in her own organic development as a grouping of particular Churches, and I wonder if it would be wise to hold the Latin rite to a standard of accountability that Orthodoxy herself would not wish to be binding.

What is your considered opinion on this?

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on April 21, 2011, 10:16:41 AM
BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?
If he believes one goes to hell for professing filioque that is pretty sad.
Yes, Hell is a pretty sad place.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 21, 2011, 11:14:59 AM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
It's basically what Izzy is asserting with post above.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 21, 2011, 11:17:14 AM
BTW, do you really think that Catholics are going to hell because we believe in the Patristic doctrine of the Filioque?
If he believes one goes to hell for professing filioque that is pretty sad.
Yes, Hell is a pretty sad place.
Well, at least we further understand the insanity of your thought.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 21, 2011, 11:18:02 AM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 21, 2011, 11:18:24 AM
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 21, 2011, 02:13:33 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 21, 2011, 02:27:31 PM
Dear PtA,

Do you have any thoughts on the following...presuming that you are correct below and the real problem is the fact that filioque actually made it into the creed....?


What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

That bears repeating.

I have a question for you in response, that presupposes eventual resumption of communion: 

Given the weight that both Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church give to tradition, is it possible for Eastern Orthodoxy to concede filioque to the Latin rite and ritual after all these centuries.

Orthodoxy might wish to make perspicacious reminders of the history and ask for an apology from the west for having changed the Creed without the agreement and consultation the eastern bishops.

On the other hand there will be the desire on the part of EO to continue on in her own organic development as a grouping of particular Churches, and I wonder if it would be wise to hold the Latin rite to a standard of accountability that Orthodoxy herself would not wish to be binding.

What is your considered opinion on this?

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 21, 2011, 03:12:33 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Melodist on April 21, 2011, 03:29:38 PM
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

Pews are. (Just for the record, I absolutely love the ones in my church.)

I personally find some of the connections made (comparing to unleavened bread, the calendar, etc) to be questionable at best. To be honest, the filioque is only heretical when it is used in the creed because it does not fit the original context of the creed. As far as I can tell, that's the only issue (inserting it into the creed) we really have with the filioque.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 21, 2011, 03:35:53 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

I guess there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion among EOs after all. ;)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 23, 2011, 10:37:34 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
Exactly. I have heard too many people on this forum argue that the filioque is heretical to believe that it was rejected only due to it being added outside an Ecumenical Council.

I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.
Agreed.
I second that agreement because, since we see the filioque only as a clarification, it is perfectly fine to say the Creed without it. After all, the words of the Creed do not say "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father alone," so not saying "and the Son" should not and does not imply that.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2011, 11:28:32 PM
On a separate note, Wyatt, I feel I should apologize for glibly remarking earlier that I "get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria".
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 23, 2011, 11:32:43 PM
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify this a little.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 23, 2011, 11:51:53 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

I guess there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion among EOs after all. ;)

Christ is Risen!

The last official statement from the Orthodox on the errors of the filioque was contained in the Encyclical of the Four Eastern Patriarchs, 1848   ~ "A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""

You can read what they write about the filioque in message 212
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27651.msg438126.html#msg438126


I see that this message was also in response to something written by Peter the Aleut, that the Creed does not state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and he asks how does the filioque contradict the Creed.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 24, 2011, 12:10:32 AM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that? Again, where is the humor here?

You're logic here is just really off: not believing that the Son participates in the causation of the Spirit does not mean that the Orthodox do not believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in any sense.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 24, 2011, 12:13:28 AM
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.

That's not the issue. The issue is not whether the Orthodox can say the Creed without filioque (as this is obviously agreed upon given the Eastern Catholic practice), but whether the Latins can say the Creed with the filioque (Catholics say yes, Orthodox say no).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 24, 2011, 12:17:32 AM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
It's basically what Izzy is asserting with post above.

Not necessarily. The passage referred to speaks of a very specific form of procession, and for all we know he was simply saying that we cannot trespass upon the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father alone. While perhaps his wording was poorly suggestive, if we take the meaning farther than this, it winds up being so illogical that I have a hard time believing that Isa would fall into that error.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 24, 2011, 12:20:56 AM
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?

IMO, no, it's not OK for Orthodox to believe that the Logos participates in the causal Spiration of the Spirit.

But that is not the only sort of procession that is treated theologically. Orthodox are free to believe (and should believe) that the Spirit proceeds from the Son in other senses.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 24, 2011, 12:22:56 AM
As far as I can tell, that's the only issue (inserting it into the creed) we really have with the filioque.

No, there is a theology that has developed exploring the filioque that has been judged to be heterodox.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: deusveritasest on April 24, 2011, 12:26:02 AM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

I guess there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion among EOs after all. ;)

Don't get too worked up, you two. All he said was that he didn't sufficiently understand the theology to have a strong opinion on it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
For what it's worth, I have no problem with the Orthodox saying the creed without the filioque.

That's not the issue.

Well, for the most part it isn't an issue. Some Catholics (maybe not very many) have in fact said that the Eastern Orthodox should say the creed with the filioque.

The issue is not whether the Orthodox can say the Creed without filioque (as this is obviously agreed upon given the Eastern Catholic practice), but whether the Latins can say the Creed with the filioque (Catholics say yes, Orthodox say no).

Correction: some Catholics say we should keep the filioque in the creed, some say we should drop it. I won't try to predict what's going to happen, but one thing I feel certain of is that if we did in fact drop it from the creed, that would make it a lot easier to get EOs to accept the dogma.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2011, 11:33:46 AM
Don't get too worked up, you two. All he said was that he didn't sufficiently understand the theology to have a strong opinion on it.

Ah man, and I was all ready to start celebrating our victory.

;)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 24, 2011, 11:41:15 AM
On a separate note, Wyatt, I feel I should apologize for glibly remarking earlier that I "get the impression you're just swallowing whole whatever you hear from elijahmaria".
Thank you. I appreciate your apology. Don't worry about it. It's easy to get worked up and frustrated on a forum. Trust me, I know.  :D

Correction: some Catholics say we should keep the filioque in the creed, some say we should drop it. I won't try to predict what's going to happen, but one thing I feel certain of is that if we did in fact drop it from the creed, that would make it a lot easier to get EOs to accept the dogma.
I am not sure that the filioque is a dogma. You are right, however, that it really would not hurt whatsoever to drop the filioque since it had not been present in the Creed for years and years and the Church was fine back then without it. I don't find it heretical, but if it would bring us closer to unity I would say "why not?" I would be willing to drop the filioque as long as the EO don't expect us to adopt a "Father alone" theology in terms of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: biro on April 24, 2011, 12:52:48 PM
Toward the end of my attendance at a Roman Catholic Church, I started going to the youth mass for a while. Every so often, I'd go to one that was earlier in the day. At the earlier one, they'd say the filioque. At the youth mass, however, they always used the Apostles' Creed, which doesn't have the filioque at all. I remember reading in the RCC Catechism that they consider both forms of the Creed to be valid. I think Wyatt brought up a good point. If they didn't have it in the beginning, might as well drop it. It wouldn't take much for the RCC to refresh the public's memory of the attendant theology- priests could give brief homilies about it, the parishes could print notices in the bulletin- and they're getting ready to implement a revised format of the liturgy anyway. It was said that the current Pope may be soon to recommend that the RCC faithful return to the older rules of fasting- every Wednesday and Friday, plus the whole of Lent- and he has taken fairly conservative stances on a number of issues. If he's ready for those types of things, hopefully he may come around on the filioque issue as well.  :)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: TheMathematician on April 24, 2011, 01:10:51 PM
Toward the end of my attendance at a Roman Catholic Church, I started going to the youth mass for a while. Every so often, I'd go to one that was earlier in the day. At the earlier one, they'd say the filioque. At the youth mass, however, they always used the Apostles' Creed, which doesn't have the filioque at all. I remember reading in the RCC Catechism that they consider both forms of the Creed to be valid. I think Wyatt brought up a good point. If they didn't have it in the beginning, might as well drop it. It wouldn't take much for the RCC to refresh the public's memory of the attendant theology- priests could give brief homilies about it, the parishes could print notices in the bulletin- and they're getting ready to implement a revised format of the liturgy anyway. It was said that the current Pope may be soon to recommend that the RCC faithful return to the older rules of fasting- every Wednesday and Friday, plus the whole of Lent- and he has taken fairly conservative stances on a number of issues. If he's ready for those types of things, hopefully he may come around on the filioque issue as well.  :)
HH Benedict XVI, when he celebrates the Mass in Greek, already does not use the filioque
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 24, 2011, 02:26:40 PM
Toward the end of my attendance at a Roman Catholic Church, I started going to the youth mass for a while. Every so often, I'd go to one that was earlier in the day. At the earlier one, they'd say the filioque. At the youth mass, however, they always used the Apostles' Creed, which doesn't have the filioque at all. I remember reading in the RCC Catechism that they consider both forms of the Creed to be valid. I think Wyatt brought up a good point. If they didn't have it in the beginning, might as well drop it. It wouldn't take much for the RCC to refresh the public's memory of the attendant theology- priests could give brief homilies about it, the parishes could print notices in the bulletin- and they're getting ready to implement a revised format of the liturgy anyway. It was said that the current Pope may be soon to recommend that the RCC faithful return to the older rules of fasting- every Wednesday and Friday, plus the whole of Lent- and he has taken fairly conservative stances on a number of issues. If he's ready for those types of things, hopefully he may come around on the filioque issue as well.  :)
HH Benedict XVI, when he celebrates the Mass in Greek, already does not use the filioque

That is because in Greek, filioque, or the equivalent is heresy BECAUSE it literally translates that the Son is also cause or origin of the divinity.

The Roman Church has NEVER taught that the Father and the Son are the cause of the divinity.  The father is the sole author of the divinity.

In LATIN the filioque does not contradict the Church's teaching that the Father is the sole author of the divinity.  Rather it addends the element of the eternal procession [without the meaning of origination] of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

The Roman practice adds a true element.  It does not negate a true element.

I fail to see why this has been such a difficult concept over the centuries.

Christ is Risen!
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 24, 2011, 03:10:04 PM
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify this a little.
I was referring to Wyatt's claim that we would have accepted the addition of filioque to the Creed if we did not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, that our rejection of the text change is due to an underlying "from the Father alone" theology. I personally don't think the Orthodox Church united enough in its theological opinions for Wyatt to posit such an explanation.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 24, 2011, 03:15:00 PM
I don't know of any passage in the Bible that states, "The Holy Spirit definitely does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever."

Straw man. That's not what the Orthodox Tradition teaches.
Actually, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son in anyway whatsoever is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox teach.

LOL. Are you for real Wyatt?
I fail to see what's funny. The Eastern Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. If they did not and believed that the Son participates in some way in this eternal procession of the Spirit then they would have accepted the filioque clause to the creed. They didn't, so what is one to conclude from that?
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.
So it's ok for EOs and OOs to believe that God the Son participates in the Spiriation of the Holy Spirit?
I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other on the underlying theology of the filioque, so I really have to respond with "I dunno".
Wow, I have say that I surprised, as there are EO writers who seem to think that the filioque is the mother of all heresies.

I guess there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion among EOs after all. ;)

Don't get too worked up, you two. All he said was that he didn't sufficiently understand the theology to have a strong opinion on it.
No, I didn't say that I don't sufficiently understand the theology. I understand the theological arguments surrounding the filioque. I just don't find any particular theological argument all that convincing.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 24, 2011, 03:17:34 PM
I see that this message was also in response to something written by Peter the Aleut, that the Creed does not state that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and he asks how does the filioque contradict the Creed.
Yeah, quote boxes can be confusing. I believe it was most likely Wyatt who said that. I know I didn't. ;)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 24, 2011, 06:35:36 PM
I was referring to Wyatt's claim that we would have accepted the addition of filioque to the Creed if we did not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, that our rejection of the text change is due to an underlying "from the Father alone" theology. I personally don't think the Orthodox Church united enough in its theological opinions for Wyatt to posit such an explanation.
So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on April 24, 2011, 08:35:42 PM
What one is to conclude from that is that we saw the Creed as untouchable save by another Ecumenical Council, that no pope of Rome ever had the authority to make unilateral changes to the Creed. Don't read too much theological significance into that rejection.

I think it would be helpful if you could clarify this a little.
I was referring to Wyatt's claim that we would have accepted the addition of filioque to the Creed if we did not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, that our rejection of the text change is due to an underlying "from the Father alone" theology. I personally don't think the Orthodox Church united enough in its theological opinions for Wyatt to posit such an explanation.

Thanks. I figured that was how you meant it, but I wasn't completely sure: it also seemed possible that you were saying that the problem was only that the Creed was changed without an ecumenical council, and that there isn't any problem with the filioque in and of itself.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Melodist on April 25, 2011, 03:06:50 PM
So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?

I would find no problem with it as long as it is kept in line with St Augustine's teaching that it is from the Father alone that the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, and St John of Damacus's teaching that it (as a theological opinion) does not contradict but rather complements what we say in the creed.

But that's just my opinion, hopefully in line with these two saints of the Church.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Papist on April 25, 2011, 03:08:44 PM
So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?

I would find no problem with it as long as it is kept in line with St Augustine's teaching that it is from the Father alone that the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, and St John of Damacus's teaching that it (as a theological opinion) does not contradict but rather complements what we say in the creed.

But that's just my opinion, hopefully in line with these two saints of the Church.
So if Latins removed it from the Creed, but believed in the filioque along the lines that you have described above, then that would be enough as far as this matter of division goes?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Melodist on April 25, 2011, 03:23:44 PM
So, then, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox Church, would filioque be at the very least an acceptable theological opinion (as long as it is not used in the Creed, of course)?

I would find no problem with it as long as it is kept in line with St Augustine's teaching that it is from the Father alone that the Holy Spirit principally proceeds, and St John of Damacus's teaching that it (as a theological opinion) does not contradict but rather complements what we say in the creed.

But that's just my opinion, hopefully in line with these two saints of the Church.
So if Latins removed it from the Creed, but believed in the filioque along the lines that you have described above, then that would be enough as far as this matter of division goes?

I don't know, but I do know it was good enough for the pre-schism saints that we hold in common.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 25, 2011, 03:33:27 PM
If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on April 25, 2011, 03:48:08 PM
If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.

Best to just leave the door open.  Talk about beliefs but don't rank them or judge their worth.  Leave those discussions to our bishops as they dialogue with one another.  Leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide through our apostolic teachers.   In other words...think, speak, believe, write...but don't conclude... :)  It is far and away above our paygrade to "conclude"....
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on April 25, 2011, 03:51:09 PM
If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.

Best to just leave the door open.  Talk about beliefs but don't rank them or judge their worth.  Leave those discussions to our bishops as they dialogue with one another.  Leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide through our apostolic teachers.   In other words...think, speak, believe, write...but don't conclude... :)  It is far and away above our paygrade to "conclude"....
That is very true. I would love it be able to see the end of the Great Schism sometime within my lifetime.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Peter J on May 08, 2011, 03:35:37 PM
If you cannot accurately represent what I say, I suggest that you stay away from my posting entirely.  So far all you've done since you came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at my posts.  I don't know you.   I only know that you post on the Byzantine Forum.  So either get what I say accurately or just simply interact here with the others and try leaving me alone for a while.

That doesn't even make any sense (unless you used to post here with a different username) because according to your profile you've only been on this forum since March 28, 2010.

But in any case, your posts have caused me to seriously consider staying away from OC-net. Your latest hostility is just one more example of the sort of thing I've come to expect from you. It appears that you either don't know that this is a Christian forum, or you don't understand what that means.

Actually the bolded portion of your statement about statements not making sense does not make sense.

Well, I didn't claim to be smart.

Maybe you could take pity on me and explain to me how it can make sense to say that all I've done since I came here has been to take gratuitous pot shots at her posts, when she has only been on this forum since March 28, 2010 (excepting if she used to post here with a different username).
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Severian on July 04, 2011, 06:15:18 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on July 04, 2011, 06:26:11 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian
Indeed!  The Spirit proceeds from the Person of the Father, not the divine essence.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: ialmisry on July 04, 2011, 06:30:19 PM
If the filioque was the only barrier to full communion of the Churches then I would have no problem dropping it for the sake of unity (and because the Creed minus the filioque is equally valid), but unfortunately we would have to entirely revamp our faith to make it compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy (no purgatory, no Immaculate Conception, no original sin, no Pope, no post-schism devotions, no unleavened bread, etc.). Because of this we might as well continue to use the filioque since it seems to be low on the list when you consider these other things.

Best to just leave the door open.  Talk about beliefs but don't rank them or judge their worth.  Leave those discussions to our bishops as they dialogue with one another.  Leave it to the Holy Spirit to guide through our apostolic teachers.   In other words...think, speak, believe, write...but don't conclude... :)  It is far and away above our paygrade to "conclude"....
It is well within our paygrade to repeat what we have been told by all generations of the Fathers, from the Apostles until now.  If a bishop thinks his salary requires a hefty retainer to engage in jesuitry around that, he can have the Vatican pay his way. And keep him.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on July 04, 2011, 10:25:40 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian

The personal relationship between the Father and the Son, attested to in Scripture, is very different from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque is a teaching about those relationships.

The Father and the Son's relationship to one another is unique and not shared with the Holy Spirit in the same way that it is with one another.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Severian on July 04, 2011, 11:56:36 PM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian

The personal relationship between the Father and the Son, attested to in Scripture, is very different from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque is a teaching about those relationships.

The Father and the Son's relationship to one another is unique and not shared with the Holy Spirit in the same way that it is with one another.

M.

But do you see why we Orthodox (i.e. both EO and OO) have a problem with the filioque? You are distinguishing between the relationships in the Trinity so much that you seem to subordinate the Spirit. Now I am not necessarily saying that's what you believe, but, do you see how that might lend itself to that interpretation? And as I said before, the procession of the Spirit is a hypostatic characteristic not an essential one. As far as I see it the three hypostases of the Trinity are distinguished by their unique hypostatic characteristics. The Father begets the Son and 'spirits' the Holy Spirit, the Son is begotten only of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. I, like many Orthodox, feel that the filioque confuses the unique hypostatic characteristics that each of the three hypostases of the Trinity possess.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on July 05, 2011, 12:54:35 AM
Doesn't Scripture refer to the Holy Spirit by both the names "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ"?
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Severian on July 05, 2011, 01:04:08 AM
Doesn't Scripture refer to the Holy Spirit by both the names "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ"?

Yes but I don't necessarily think that this means that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. You can reconcile the Orthodox view per filium with scripture. Of course I am not an expert and if any of you have caught me making an error please correct me. The Spirit is sent from the Father through the Son. Perhaps this quote from St Cyril of Alexandria can further add to this discussion:

"After the thrice-blessed Fathers have brought to an end the statement about Christ, they mention the Holy Spirit. For they stated that they believe in him, just as they do in the Father and in the Son. For his is consubstantial with them and he is poured forth, that is, he proceeds as from the fountain of God the Father and he is bestowed on creation through the Son."

I'm logging out. I might check up on this stuff tomorrow.

God Bless,
Severian
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Wyatt on July 05, 2011, 01:07:55 AM
Doesn't Scripture refer to the Holy Spirit by both the names "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ"?

Yes but I don't necessarily think that this means that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. You can reconcile the Orthodox view per filium with scripture. Of course I am not an expert and if any of you have caught me making an error please correct me.
"Of Christ" means, to me, "originating in" or "of the origin of" Christ. Referring to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, as both the "Spirit of the Father" and "Spirit of Christ" interchangeably seems to point to a special connection and relationship between the Father and Son and makes a strong case for filioque.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Severian on July 05, 2011, 01:11:29 AM
@Wyatt I edited & elaborated on my previous post.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on July 05, 2011, 09:12:47 AM
I honestly do not understand the problem with the filioque. We know that all Persons of the Trinity are equal and eternal. We know that the Son possesses everything which the Father does, and that Father and Son are one. Taking all of this into account it does not seem farfetched to me at all to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son. It emphasizes the oneness of the Holy Trinity.

But wouldn't that mean by the same standard because the Father and Holy Spirit are of one essence that the Son could be spoken of as being begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, consubstantiality (i.e. of the Father and the Son) is a property of essence/substance while temporal/eternal procession is a property of hypostasis.

In Christ,
Severian

The personal relationship between the Father and the Son, attested to in Scripture, is very different from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Filioque is a teaching about those relationships.

The Father and the Son's relationship to one another is unique and not shared with the Holy Spirit in the same way that it is with one another.

M.

But do you see why we Orthodox (i.e. both EO and OO) have a problem with the filioque? You are distinguishing between the relationships in the Trinity so much that you seem to subordinate the Spirit. Now I am not necessarily saying that's what you believe, but, do you see how that might lend itself to that interpretation? And as I said before, the procession of the Spirit is a hypostatic characteristic not an essential one. As far as I see it the three hypostases of the Trinity are distinguished by their unique hypostatic characteristics. The Father begets the Son and 'spirits' the Holy Spirit, the Son is begotten only of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. I, like many Orthodox, feel that the filioque confuses the unique hypostatic characteristics that each of the three hypostases of the Trinity possess.

Yes.  Thank you for your exceptionally well reasoned and complete response.  I do indeed understand it, and have for some time.  It is a natural conclusion to presume that the west elevates the relationship of the Father and the Son into some disordered Trinitarian theology.

However natural that conclusion, it is not a revealed conclusion upheld in Scripture.  Scripture is the source of the emphasis on the Father and the Son's unique relationship.  In fact the emphasis on the Holy Spirit must come from Tradition, for it is not found as clearly in Scripture as it is in Tradition.  Protecting the equality of the third person of the Trinity with the Father and the Son was a difficult path initially.

Be that as it may, we ought not diminish that very clear and explicit relationship between the Father and the Son simply to avoid making a mistake.  IF the goal in theology is to not make mistakes, I expect we'd have little if anything to say at all.  Even liturgy would be too dangerous.  Do you cease to ask the Mother of God to save us, simply because it is a teaching that could be misunderstood.  Is it not the purpose of catechesis to explain those teachings where they are not so obvious on the surface?

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: primuspilus on July 05, 2011, 10:27:24 AM
Would it be more proper to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?

primuspilus
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Severian on July 05, 2011, 10:29:07 AM
Thank you for your response. I now understand the Catholic position on the filioque better due to your posts. But, what do you think of the above quote from St Cyril that I posted?
And yes I do think from the Father through the Son is acceptable to the Orthodox. This is the teaching of Athanasius and Cyril. IIRC, Photius had no problem with it.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on July 05, 2011, 10:56:36 AM
Thank you for your response. I now understand the Catholic position on the filioque better due to your posts. But, what do you think of the above quote from St Cyril that I posted?
And yes I do think from the Father through the Son is acceptable to the Orthodox. This is the teaching of Athanasius and Cyril. IIRC, Photius had no problem with it.

"After the thrice-blessed Fathers have brought to an end the statement about Christ, they mention the Holy Spirit. For they stated that they believe in him, just as they do in the Father and in the Son. For his [sic] is consubstantial with them and he is poured forth, that is, he proceeds as from the fountain of God the Father and he is bestowed on creation through the Son." ~St. Cyril

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where to begin?...If you read the last part carefully, and remember Scripture, it is clear that Jesus' Hand was on Creation by the power of the Holy Spirit so that one must look not only to find the Holy Spirit in earthly time but eternally as well:

This is what the LORD says-
your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb:
I am the LORD, who has created all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself.
(Isaiah 44:24)

For by him (Christ Jesus) all things were created:
things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities-
All things were created by him and for him.
(Col 1:16-17)

Therefore the formulation in Latin refers to both the eternal procession and the earthly procession and in NEITHER case is the procession one of origination, nor is the preposition "from" restricted to some rigid meaning of origination.  From/through the Son refers to the same relationship and neither are originate.

The papal Church teaches explicitly that the Father is the source of all divinity, and that would include the essential and the hypostatic.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on July 05, 2011, 10:57:46 AM
Thank you for your response. I now understand the Catholic position on the filioque better due to your posts.

All praise and thanks to God.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Severian on July 05, 2011, 11:03:50 AM
Thank you, that clarifies a lot. Now, don't think I by any means accept the filioque, but, I have increased my understanding of the RC position. That was the reason I joined this forum, not to debate or to argue, but, to increase my understanding. I suppose I'll take a deeper look into this later. Thanks!
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on July 05, 2011, 11:41:55 AM
Thank you, that clarifies a lot. Now, don't think I by any means accept the filioque, but, I have increased my understanding of the RC position. That was the reason I joined this forum, not to debate or to argue, but, to increase my understanding. I suppose I'll take a deeper look into this later. Thanks!

There's never a need for you to accept the filioque, since it is not at all a part of your eastern or Byzantine tradition...presuming that you are of the Byzantine [Greek or Slav] tradition...I see now that you are not but even still, filioque is not part of your tradition in any way.

What would be helpful is to understand filioque sufficiently to be able to accept it as a legitimate and true theology, and then accept its inclusion in the Roman rite as part of its credal tradition. 

The reason that the filioque should not be removed from the Creed is precisely the same reason that Orthodoxy does not want to change ANY of her traditions, should we ever resume communion together...

There are some Roman bishops who would love to see Latinizations foisted upon Orthodoxy.  You can't slam the door shut in their faces on that score and then demand that they change their own traditions.

Must be mutual acceptance of one anothers traditions,  if not full and immediate universal respect, which is nearly impossible even across Orthodox jurisdictions.

M.
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: Severian on July 05, 2011, 11:43:29 AM
For the record I am Oriental Orthodox, not Byzantine or Slavic, we also reject the filioque. Thanks again  :)
Title: Re: Creed question
Post by: elijahmaria on July 05, 2011, 11:50:23 AM
For the record I am Oriental Orthodox, not Byzantine or Slavic, we also reject the filioque. Thanks again  :)

When I was typing my reply I didn't have your data in front of me.  I caught it as soon as the note was published and corrected for you as a Copt!  :)   

Perhaps there will come a time when "reject" will not be the normative position toward filioque...bur rather acceptance in its appropriate context.

M.