OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Ansgar on September 13, 2013, 01:28:58 PM

Title: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Ansgar on September 13, 2013, 01:28:58 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shanghaiski on September 13, 2013, 01:35:13 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Apologia for heresy
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 13, 2013, 01:36:04 PM
Stupid. It cites St. Gregory Palamas as a proponent of the filioque.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: biro on September 13, 2013, 01:36:31 PM
End well: not gonna.  :-[
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on September 13, 2013, 01:38:37 PM
Quote
Apologia for heresy

Ditto.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 13, 2013, 02:00:22 PM
Third rate "scholarship." A more reasoned analysis of the Filioque is here: "The Filioque: a Church-Dividing Issue? An Agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul's College, Washington, d.c. October, 2003"
http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Arachne on September 13, 2013, 02:02:53 PM
Can't keep what we don't have. ;)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 13, 2013, 02:03:28 PM
Interesting article, but the reasons given for keeping the filioque are actually the reasons why it should be abandoned. Nevertheless, I must say that it is refreshing when a Westerner unequivocally says that the filioque does involve giving causal power to the Son in the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit. In fact, I prefer that older approach to the filioque debate to the modern approach taken by many Westerners where they - in spite of the teaching of the Council of Florence - pretend that the Father is still the sole cause of the Spirit's subsistence. It is always best to be honest.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Santagranddad on September 13, 2013, 02:09:25 PM
The Church has again and again rejected the Filioque and nothing produced here even begins to provide a case for overturning this. This is the clear expression of the mind of the Church.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2013, 02:10:29 PM
Can't keep what we don't have. ;)
and what we don't want.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 13, 2013, 02:13:21 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0g5pVkto1rj3yi1o1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 13, 2013, 04:19:41 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 13, 2013, 05:17:45 PM
Quote
Apologia for heresy

Ditto.

As an Orthodox Christian I view it as a heresy.. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 13, 2013, 05:18:09 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 13, 2013, 06:02:49 PM
Keepthefilioque.com...just when I thought I'd heard it all. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 13, 2013, 07:22:21 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2013, 08:12:15 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.
As Catholics, we don't have a choice: we must condemn it as heresy, as all the Orthodox Fathers of the Catholic Church have.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 13, 2013, 08:14:14 PM
Keepthefilioque.com...just when I thought I'd heard it all. 
At least it is up front with its heresy:
Quote
The point of the filioque is that the Son is also the source of the Holy Spirit along with the Father. The Holy Spirit receives the divine essence not only from the Father, but also from the Son.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 13, 2013, 08:15:33 PM
My favorite reason was # 3:  The Reformed Churches kept it, therefore the filioque must be correct.  The Reformed Churches also kept the Catholic understanding of penal satisfaction and atonement.  Because the Reformed Churches have never taught heresy.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 13, 2013, 08:22:35 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: username! on September 14, 2013, 01:31:57 AM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
Why not doubt you?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 14, 2013, 01:45:52 AM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.
As Catholics, we don't have a choice: we must condemn it as heresy, as all the Orthodox Fathers of the Catholic Church have.
LOL!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 14, 2013, 02:50:28 AM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
Why not doubt you?

Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed if you are eastern because of how it translates into a heresy in Greek. But it must be believed by all regardless.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 14, 2013, 07:43:50 AM
Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed...

"Your creed"?  I thought the RC's also accepted Nicaea and Constantinople.  Or are you admitting the universal Church's creed is not your own?  Because that's OK...being a non-Christian is not an insurmountable obstacle, it can be remedied if you want.     

Quote
...if you are eastern because of how it translates into a heresy in Greek. But it must be believed by all regardless.

You'd think Rome would be more painstakingly careful about such things.  The procession of the Holy Spirit deserves at least as responsible and comprehensive a treatment as the Pope, women's ordination, Anglican orders, and/or abortion.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 14, 2013, 08:00:06 AM
Keepthefilioque.com...just when I thought I'd heard it all. 

They also sponsor another page,  bringbackthepopemobile.org.   ;)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: orthonorm on September 14, 2013, 08:28:00 AM
Keepthefilioque.com...just when I thought I'd heard it all. 

They also sponsor another page,  bringbackthepopemobile.org.   ;)

Server's down. Oh well.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: zekarja on September 14, 2013, 02:48:02 PM
Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed...

"Your creed"?  I thought the RC's also accepted Nicaea and Constantinople.  Or are you admitting the universal Church's creed is not your own?  Because that's OK...being a non-Christian is not an insurmountable obstacle, it can be remedied if you want.

'"Your creed"?'

He was referring to each sui iuris (Melkite Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Maronite Catholic, etc) Churches individual variations of the Creed. And before anyone starts saying that no variation in the Creed is allowed, here is the Armenian variation:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Source: http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/creed.pdf
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: lovesupreme on September 14, 2013, 05:18:43 PM
Keepthefilioque.com...just when I thought I'd heard it all. 

Reminds me of http://keepthesabbath.com/
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on September 14, 2013, 05:45:41 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
Why not doubt you?

Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed if you are eastern because of how it translates into a heresy in Greek. But it must be believed by all regardless.
Ιτ must be believed by all because the Pope said so... which is why Orthodox are not in communion with Rome. It should be "believed by all" because that's what Christ taught us. That it proceeds from the Father. (John 15:26)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: William on September 14, 2013, 05:54:19 PM
I like how they've got the dove on the website banner. Really helps establish their expertise on traditional Christian theology about the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 14, 2013, 06:27:41 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 14, 2013, 06:28:29 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Alpo on September 14, 2013, 07:25:53 PM
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

Is it compulsory for Romans?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 14, 2013, 07:33:53 PM
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

Is it compulsory for Romans?
It's in the Roman Liturgy, so for now, yes. Could this be changed? sure. It's a matter of discipline.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 14, 2013, 09:06:05 PM
Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed...

"Your creed"?  I thought the RC's also accepted Nicaea and Constantinople.  Or are you admitting the universal Church's creed is not your own?  Because that's OK...being a non-Christian is not an insurmountable obstacle, it can be remedied if you want.

'"Your creed"?'

He was referring to each sui iuris (Melkite Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Maronite Catholic, etc) Churches individual variations of the Creed. And before anyone starts saying that no variation in the Creed is allowed, here is the Armenian variation:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Source: http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/creed.pdf
The Armenian Creed is not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 381); instead, it is a slightly modified form of the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325). Rome, on the other hand, has modified the creed of the second ecumenical council (A.D. 381), while none of the other Churches (Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedonian) using that creed have done that. On the usage of the creed during the liturgy the other Non-Chalcedonian Churches, like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, use the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and probably because they were never as isolated as the Armenian Church has been at different times in Christian history.

I suppose Rome could switch to using the original Nicene Creed instead of the Creed of Constantinople, but I doubt that would really help solve the problems that exist between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. It would be easier for Rome to simply drop the filioque from its present creed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 14, 2013, 10:35:11 PM
Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed...

"Your creed"?  I thought the RC's also accepted Nicaea and Constantinople.  Or are you admitting the universal Church's creed is not your own?  Because that's OK...being a non-Christian is not an insurmountable obstacle, it can be remedied if you want.

'"Your creed"?'

He was referring to each sui iuris (Melkite Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Maronite Catholic, etc) Churches individual variations of the Creed. And before anyone starts saying that no variation in the Creed is allowed, here is the Armenian variation:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Source: http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/creed.pdf
The Armenian Creed is not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 381); instead, it is a slightly modified form of the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325). Rome, on the other hand, has modified the creed of the second ecumenical council (A.D. 381), while none of the other Churches (Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedonian) using that creed have done that. On the usage of the creed during the liturgy the other Non-Chalcedonian Churches, like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, use the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and probably because they were never as isolated as the Armenian Church has been at different times in Christian history.

I suppose Rome could switch to using the original Nicene Creed instead of the Creed of Constantinople, but I doubt that would really help solve the problems that exist between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. It would be easier for Rome to simply drop the filioque from its present creed.

But the problem is that the RC will still defend the Filioque theologically whether it is said in the Creed or not.  Unity of the faith must consist more than simply saying the same thing.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 15, 2013, 01:29:37 AM
Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed...

"Your creed"?  I thought the RC's also accepted Nicaea and Constantinople.  Or are you admitting the universal Church's creed is not your own?  Because that's OK...being a non-Christian is not an insurmountable obstacle, it can be remedied if you want.

'"Your creed"?'

He was referring to each sui iuris (Melkite Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Maronite Catholic, etc) Churches individual variations of the Creed. And before anyone starts saying that no variation in the Creed is allowed, here is the Armenian variation:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Source: http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/creed.pdf
The Armenian Creed is not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (A.D. 381); instead, it is a slightly modified form of the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325). Rome, on the other hand, has modified the creed of the second ecumenical council (A.D. 381), while none of the other Churches (Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedonian) using that creed have done that. On the usage of the creed during the liturgy the other Non-Chalcedonian Churches, like the Eastern Orthodox Churches, use the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and probably because they were never as isolated as the Armenian Church has been at different times in Christian history.

I suppose Rome could switch to using the original Nicene Creed instead of the Creed of Constantinople, but I doubt that would really help solve the problems that exist between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox. It would be easier for Rome to simply drop the filioque from its present creed.

But the problem is that the RC will still defend the Filioque theologically whether it is said in the Creed or not.  Unity of the faith must consist more than simply saying the same thing.
Perhaps that is why I am an "ecumenical pessimist."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:40:14 AM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
Why not doubt you?

Because all Catholics must believe in Filioque. Its only optional to put it in your creed if you are eastern because of how it translates into a heresy in Greek. But it must be believed by all regardless.
must be believed by all because the Pope said so... which is why Orthodox are not in communion with Rome. It should be "believed by all" because that's what Christ taught us. That it proceeds from the Father. (John 15:26)

It must be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church polar and foundation of truth.

oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the orthodoxy of the the filioque clause such as St.Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of hippo, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Hilary of Potiers and St Thomas Aquinas among others
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 08:29:21 AM
It must be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church polar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the orthodoxy of the the filioque clause such as St.Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of hippo, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Hilary of Potiers and St Thomas Aquinas among others

It must not be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the heresy of the the filioque clause such as St. Photius the Great, St.John Damascene, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas among others
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 08:46:00 AM
It must be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church polar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the orthodoxy of the the filioque clause such as St.Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of hippo, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Hilary of Potiers and St Thomas Aquinas among others

It must not be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the heresy of the the filioque clause such as St. Photius the Great, St.John Damascene, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas among others

Actually... St Maximus the confessor defensed the Latin teaching of filioque against the Greeks when questioned by them. He got his information from the Latins themselves and then went on to defend the orthodoxy of the teaching. "and the son".
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 08:56:59 AM
It must be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church polar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the orthodoxy of the the filioque clause such as St.Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of hippo, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Hilary of Potiers and St Thomas Aquinas among others

It must not be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the heresy of the the filioque clause such as St. Photius the Great, St.John Damascene, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas among others

Actually... St Maximus the confessor defensed the Latin teaching of filioque against the Greeks when questioned by them. He got his information from the Latins themselves and then went on to defend the orthodoxy of the teaching. "and the son".

"With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced 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 (aitian) 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 ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence."

The Latins of today teach that the Father and the Son are the aitia of the Holy Spirit, quite unlike what they believed in St. Maximus' days. Do you believe that the Father is the "only cause of the Son and the Spirit"?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 12:44:08 PM
It must be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the son. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church polar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the orthodoxy of the the filioque clause such as St.Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of hippo, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Hilary of Potiers and St Thomas Aquinas among others

It must not be believed because the Holy Spirit guides the church of Christ in all truth and through the church its has been taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. He has spoken through the church ... That is why we are supposed to believe because the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Various doctors of the church and saints have explained the heresy of the the filioque clause such as St. Photius the Great, St.John Damascene, St Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas among others

Actually... St Maximus the confessor defensed the Latin teaching of filioque against the Greeks when questioned by them. He got his information from the Latins themselves and then went on to defend the orthodoxy of the teaching. "and the son".

"With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced 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 (aitian) 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 ekporeusis (procession) - but that they have manifested the procession through him (to dia autou proienai) and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence."

The Latins of today teach that the Father and the Son are the aitia of the Holy Spirit, quite unlike what they believed in St. Maximus' days. Do you believe that the Father is the "only cause of the Son and the Spirit"?

St.Augustine shows this best :

Quote
At the same time they (learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures) hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia sine principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics".[19][20][21]

The one from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" ibid., 15:17:29).

and yet still he taught
Quote
If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Per oc.rules you can not copy and paste long parts of material from non oc.net sources.  Also you must provide sources.  The rule is to paste a sentence or two AND a description of the article.  consider this your informal warning -username! section moderator
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 12:51:17 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 01:26:06 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?

Not just me but the Catholic Church teaches monarchy of the father.
This source goes into the issue and does a good job of showing this:

Quote
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. St. Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole Principle without Principle (in Greek, aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they (the Romans) brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St. John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son cause (aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusis — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).

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. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance... It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).

In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in no.248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle,' is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds" (Council of Lyons II, DS 850).
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=10011463&CFTOKEN=62100802
 

 

Even Bishop Kalistos Ware taught that after years of study into the filioque, he realized that the west and the east are teaching the same thing bit rather the issue was all due to semantics and misunderstandings. :
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 15, 2013, 02:37:44 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] 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.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) Warned for a week for violating the rule about copy and pasting entire articles from non-oc.net sources.  Read the rules for the rule.
username! section moderator

 warning removed since it was poster's original content
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 15, 2013, 02:39:37 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?

Not just me but the Catholic Church teaches monarchy of the father.
This source goes into the issue and does a good job of showing this:

Quote
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. St. Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole Principle without Principle (in Greek, aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they (the Romans) brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St. Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St. John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son cause (aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusis — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).

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. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance... It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).

In 1274, the second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in no.248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle,' is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds" (Council of Lyons II, DS 850).
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176&CFID=10011463&CFTOKEN=62100802
 

 

Even Bishop Kalistos Ware taught that after years of study into the filioque, he realized that the west and the east are teaching the same thing bit rather the issue was all due to semantics and misunderstandings. :

I think you have over simplified  Bishop Kallistos' point a bit too far. There is a good discussion of the semantic misunderstandings (the easier part to reconcile) and the theological and eccesiological differences between us regarding Filioque about midway through the previously cited 2003  paper of the North American dialogue.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 15, 2013, 02:54:03 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: lovesupreme on September 15, 2013, 03:40:13 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 03:54:34 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] 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.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).

Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.

Further, stubbornness like that presented above is the reason schism will persist. We teach what has been taught by the fathers and maximus attests to this saying the west showed the writings of the western fathers as evidence of filioque.

Both the councils of Lyon and Florence teach what is taught today. Its only that today clarification has been made evident due to misunderstanding. As noted before Kallistos Ware admits the orthodoxy of filioque as taught by the catholic church.

Maybe this will help :

Quote
The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio.

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

This is in line with what these fathers taught. :

Quote
St Augustine of Hippo

At the same time they (learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures) hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia sine principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics".[19][20][21]

The one from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son"  ibid., 15:17:29).

If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

St Hilary of Pottiers

Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

 

St. Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

 

St. Ambrose of Milan

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnwarn.gif) warned for 14 days.  You can't copy and paste long parts of articles from non oc.net sources. you must simply provide a synopsis and a sentence or two AND the link.  You didn't do that.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif) You are on post moderation for 15 days because you violated the rules officially three times that I can count in this thread.  You didn't even provide a link to the list of fathers you quoted.  Regardless you can't go about copy and pasting long parts of articles or entire articles from other websites. It is against our rules for specific reasons.  

moderation reduced to warning
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 03:55:30 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 15, 2013, 04:05:38 PM
Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy

Sophistry! How come only the Greek is vulnerable to this heresy, whereas the Latin version and all other translations are immune? If they speak of other things than the original (i.e. the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father), then they are not faithful translations and ought to be emendated. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 15, 2013, 04:07:41 PM
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

Is it compulsory for Romans?
It's in the Roman Liturgy, so for now, yes. Could this be changed? sure. It's a matter of discipline.

Actually, it's not exactly compulsory even in the Roman Rite: a priest can choose to use the Apostles' Creed. (Not too long ago, that was restricted to "Children's masses" and certain season. But not anymore.)

There's also another possibility (although very rarely employed): saying the Creed in Greek, in which case there is certainly no filioque. But that's only allowed if Greek is your vernacular or if you have your bishop's permission.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 04:16:34 PM
I wish there were a 'report to ialmisry' button underneath every post in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion forum.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 04:28:41 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 04:30:15 PM

Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.

The Alexandrians, like St. Cyril, didn't teach the filioque in the modern sense of the word. St. Cyril said as much in answer to Theodoret's objection to his filioquist-like language.

Likewise, none of the Eastern Fathers taught that the Holy Spirit proceeded hypostatically from the Son.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 04:33:51 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 04:35:36 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 04:39:03 PM
Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy

Sophistry! How come only the Greek is vulnerable to this heresy, whereas the Latin version and all other translations are immune? If they speak of other things than the original (i.e. the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father), then they are not faithful translations and ought to be emendated. 

LOL due to the fact that languages are spoken differently and the words in two languages convey different things :

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes that, in the Greek language, the word used in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (ἐκπορευόμενον, "who proceeds") to signify the proceeding of the Holy Spirit cannot appropriately be used with regard to the Son, but only with regard to the Father, a difficulty that does not exist in other languages.[135] For this reason, even in the liturgy of Latin Rite Catholics, it does not add the phrase corresponding to Filioque (καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ) to the Greek text of the Creed containing the word ἐκπορευόμενον.[/quote]
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 04:40:43 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 04:40:48 PM
The Dutch 'uitgaan van' has the same connonations as the Greek ekporeuomai. Yet Dutch Roman Catholics profess the filioque in the creed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 04:41:15 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 04:41:52 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 04:48:54 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] 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.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).

Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.
No, the East objected every time they came across it and demanded it be dropped, on pain of excommunication (hence the decree of Constantinople IV (879), and the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus).

Further, stubbornness like that presented above is the reason schism will persist. We teach what has been taught by the fathers and maximus attests to this saying the west showed the writings of the western fathers as evidence of filioque.
Yes, the Vatican's stubbornness to persist in its misunderstanding is the reason schism-and heresy-will persist.

Both the councils of Lyon and Florence teach what is taught today.
Yes-heresy.
Its only that today clarification has been made evident due to misunderstanding. As noted before Kallistos Ware admits the orthodoxy of filioque as taught by the catholic church.
As noted before Met. Kallistos Ware is not infallible, and if he accepts filioque as being taught by the Catholic Church, he is mistaken.

Maybe this will help :

Quote
The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio.

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
Yes, it helped heresy be heresy.

This is in line with what these fathers taught. :

Quote
St Augustine of Hippo

At the same time they (learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures) hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia sine principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics".[19][20][21]

The one from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son"  ibid., 15:17:29).

If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

St Hilary of Pottiers

Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

 

St. Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

 

St. Ambrose of Milan

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).
I'm a little pressed for time, so won't go into these already long and many times refuted spooftexts for the filioque.  I'll just make two points now: St. Augustine admitted that he did not fully understand such matters and believed if he could read the Greek Fathers in the original-where he believed the answer would be found-he would have a better understanding.  It has been shown that the many (all?) of the Greek texts used as spoof texts at Florence were interpolated.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 04:50:47 PM
In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 04:51:43 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 04:52:40 PM
In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 04:53:58 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.    

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.
This is rubbish

Filioque wasn't stuck into the creed until Arianism was defeated and the divinity of all three persons proved.  Defeated, that is, in the West.  It had died out already in 381, slain by the Second Ecumenical Council, in the East.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 04:54:22 PM
In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 04:56:43 PM
In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
In both languages, or in both Orthodox and corrupted form?  He did the former, to refute the latter.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 15, 2013, 04:57:42 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/

Here are my thoughts: If you're going to keep the filioque, then it makes sense to me to expend a certain amount of energy laying out reasons why. So in principle, the website sounds like a good idea.

Based on my experience, however, I did not really expect good things from that website ... and my expectations were exceeded, in a negative sense that is. (Have you read #8??)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 15, 2013, 04:57:58 PM
In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
In both languages, or in both Orthodox and corrupted form?  He did the former, to refute the latter.

Proclaim that the creed should be chanted in Greek and that the creed without the filioque, both in Greek and Latin, should be posted on the doors of the St. Peter.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:04:50 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.

Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this  :-\
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:08:11 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.

yet it neve reached the west fully until Chalcedon. By them Latin was all that ws spoken
Secondly the Latin word is of most importance. The Latin word accommodates filioque whereas the Greek doesn't. This is common knowledge. I expect you to know this
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:10:15 PM
In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

Pope Leo III decided that it should be recited in Greek.
No, actually he posted the Creed WITHOUT FILIOQUE in Greek AND LATIN on the doors of St. Peter's and the crypt of St. Paul's.

IIRC he did both. My memory might be failing me, though.
In both languages, or in both Orthodox and corrupted form?  He did the former, to refute the latter.

Proclaim that the creed should be chanted in Greek and that the creed without the filioque, both in Greek and Latin, should be posted on the doors of the St. Peter.

It should be noted that this same Leo accepted the theology of filioque but didn't want it on the creed , not for theological reasons, but to keep east from bring upset. Which is later what happened when it was eventually included
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:14:36 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.    

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.
This is rubbish

Filioque wasn't stuck into the creed until Arianism was defeated and the divinity of all three persons proved.  Defeated, that is, in the West.  It had died out already in 381, slain by the Second Ecumenical Council, in the East.

Again, rubbish

its insertion I'm the creed is immaterial to why filioque was taught. It was taught for hundreds of years before it was included for the purpose mentioned. And it served its purpose in its time.

Funny thing is that the western Arians used the creed without the clause to prove their point and hence the theology of the filioque was necessary and did the job in silencing their arguments.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:20:46 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] 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.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).

Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.
No, the East objected every time they came across it and demanded it be dropped, on pain of excommunication (hence the decree of Constantinople IV (879), and the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus).

Further, stubbornness like that presented above is the reason schism will persist. We teach what has been taught by the fathers and maximus attests to this saying the west showed the writings of the western fathers as evidence of filioque.
Yes, the Vatican's stubbornness to persist in its misunderstanding is the reason schism-and heresy-will persist.

Both the councils of Lyon and Florence teach what is taught today.
Yes-heresy.
Its only that today clarification has been made evident due to misunderstanding. As noted before Kallistos Ware admits the orthodoxy of filioque as taught by the catholic church.
As noted before Met. Kallistos Ware is not infallible, and if he accepts filioque as being taught by the Catholic Church, he is mistaken.

Maybe this will help :

Quote
The seventeenth session of the council (the first at Florence) took place in the papal palace on 26 February. In nine consecutive sessions, the Filioque was the chief matter of discussion. In the last session but one (twenty-fourth of Ferrara, eighth of Florence) Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." In the last session, the same theologian again expounded the doctrine, after which the public sessions were closed at the request of the Greeks, as it seemed useless to prolong further the theological discussions. At this juncture began the active efforts of Isidore of Kiev, and, as the result of further parleys, Eugene IV submitted four propositions summing up the result of the previous discussion and exposing the weakness of the attitude of the Greeks. As the latter were loath to admit defeat, Cardinal Bessarion, in a special meeting of the Greeks, on 13 and 14 April, 1439, delivered his famous discourse in favour of reunion, and was supported by Georgius Scholarius. Both parties now met again, after which, to put an end to all equivocation, the Latins drew up and read a declaration of their faith in which they stated that they did not admit two "principia" in the Trinity, but only one, the productive power of the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son. They admitted, therefore, two hypostases, one action, one productive power, and one product due to the substance and the hypostases of the Father and the Son. The Greeks met this statement with an equivocal counter-formula, whereupon Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, and Dortheus of Mitylene, encouraged by the emperor, came out strongly in favour of the ex filio.

The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
Yes, it helped heresy be heresy.

This is in line with what these fathers taught. :

Quote
St Augustine of Hippo

At the same time they (learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures) hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten, like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without beginning (ne duo constituamus principia sine principio), which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain heretics".[19][20][21]

The one from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son"  ibid., 15:17:29).

If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

St Hilary of Pottiers

Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).

"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not g.asp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).

Didymus the Blind

"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).

 

Epiphanius of Salamis

"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).

 

St. Basil The Great

"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).

 

St. Ambrose of Milan

"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).

"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

Fulgence of Ruspe

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only God the Son, who is one person of the Trinity, is the Son of the only God the Father; but the Holy Spirit himself also one person of the Trinity, is Spirit not of the Father only, but of Father and of Son together" (The Rule of Faith 53 [A.D. 524]).

"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit who is Spirit of the Father and of the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son" (ibid., 54).
I'm a little pressed for time, so won't go into these already long and many times refuted spooftexts for the filioque.  I'll just make two points now: St. Augustine admitted that he did not fully understand such matters and believed if he could read the Greek Fathers in the original-where he believed the answer would be found-he would have a better understanding.  It has been shown that the many (all?) of the Greek texts used as spoof texts at Florence were interpolated.

LOL. I actually read about this recently and what the geeks at the council admitted was that the western fathers explicitly taught filioque. What we was in contention is the quotes of the Greek fathers that the Latins presented. The Greeks claimed these were corruptions. it is admitted that a few are suspect but alot were  genuine AND in some cases some of the texts the Greeks presented themselves were actually forgeries and that the Latins had the correct versions.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:26:41 PM
The Dutch 'uitgaan van' has the same connonations as the Greek ekporeuomai. Yet Dutch Roman Catholics profess the filioque in the creed.

I don't know about this and I'm sure there is an explanation if you read up. I'll research this.
I checked a translator and uitgaan van translates into a lot of other things. The closest translation I could find was "assume" but there was no proceed. Are you sure this is the right phrase?

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shlomlokh on September 15, 2013, 05:29:37 PM
Am I the only one who is impressed at how well Wandile can copy/paste from scripturecatholic.com?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 05:41:18 PM
LOL. I actually read about this recently and what the geeks at the council admitted was that the western fathers explicitly taught filioque. What we was in contention is the quotes of the Greek fathers that the Latins presented. The Greeks claimed these were corruptions. it is admitted that a few are suspect but alot were  genuine AND in some cases some of the texts the Greeks presented themselves were actually forgeries and that the Latins had the correct versions.
I was referring to what Fr. John Erikson's article on this refers to.  It's in his "Challenges of our Past."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:41:27 PM
Am I the only one who is impressed at how well Wandile can copy/paste from scripturecatholic.com?

In Christ,
Andrew

I'm very good at it ;D
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 15, 2013, 05:51:12 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.

Also, if I recall my history, ecclesiastical Latin is not the spoken Latin in use at the time of the Council of Nicea so relying on it is proof of not much of anything.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 15, 2013, 05:53:39 PM
What do you think?

http://www.keepthefilioque.com/2013/09/reasons-why-the-filioque-should-be-maintained/



Answer: As a Catholic, I believe in the Filioque.

As a Catholic you don't have a choice.

Except if you are Eastern Catholic; there some include it, others don't. Go figure.

If push comes to shove, an Eastern Catholic must agree with Rome on the Filioque......Don't doubt me.
True. EC's just don't have to include it in the Creed.

To me, this doesn't work. ECs can omit a very crucial clause from their confession of faith, but they have to believe it anyway?

Yes because if the clause is added into the Greek, it becomes a heresy
and in what language did the Fathers compose the Creed and set their seal on it?

In what language is it confessed in the roman church?

The fact is Latin can accommodate flioque and Greek can't since the words in the creed make this so

Since a) no Latin was spoken at the Second Ecumenical Council AFAIK, and b) the Roman Church did not fully adopt Latin until that time or shortly thereafter, whatever Latin does is of no interest to anyone except Ultramontanists.

Neither the Lord nor the Evangalists spoke Latin, so your "point" is moot.

Also, if I recall my history, ecclesiastical Latin is not the spoken Latin in use at the time of the Council of Nicea so relying on it is proof of not much of anything.

irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.

Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 15, 2013, 07:21:31 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: username! on September 15, 2013, 09:04:28 PM
Am I the only one who is impressed at how well Wandile can copy/paste from scripturecatholic.com?

In Christ,
Andrew
Instead of being passiveabout it click the report to moderator button.  That's is what it is there for.  Helps me out as your moderator.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 15, 2013, 09:15:49 PM
No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

It's funny that you claim the Filioque is based on passages other than the one in which Christ directly addresses the issue using the same language adopted in the Creed.  How sound is a theology that ignores Christ?  

Quote
Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.

Maybe you ought to take your own advice and make sure what you're talking about.  Regarding the Alexandrians teaching the Filioque as the Latins profess it, I have no idea what you're talking about.  Neither does anyone else, apparently, including the Alexandrians.  
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: username! on September 15, 2013, 09:15:58 PM
I wish there were a 'report to ialmisry' button underneath every post in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion forum.

There is a report to moderator, I can actually do something about infractions.  ISa can't
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: username! on September 15, 2013, 09:25:06 PM
Please use the report to moderator link if you believe there are rules infractions taking place in a thread.  That way the moderator and his team can review your complaint and go from there.  -username! section moderator
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 15, 2013, 09:38:39 PM
The Filioque is but a small part of what separates us, and if you think of all the differences one has to wonder what if any true unity will happen between the two churches.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 15, 2013, 10:30:32 PM
So, do you, like St.Maximus, confess that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit and the Son?
The Roman Catholic Church has issued a clarification on the filioque, which is really quite inadequate, because it refuses to alter the teaching put forth at the Council of Lyons II and the Council of Florence, neither of which can be conformed to the teaching of the Eastern Churches as exemplified in the letter of St. Maximos to Marinus.

The idea that the Father and the Son together cause the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit (see the Florentine decree [1]), is not compatible with the doctrine of the procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin of the Spirit as understood in the East. Moreover, the teaching of Lyons II, which introduced the novel idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together as from "one principle" [2], is again contrary to the Eastern understanding that procession (ἐκπόρευσις) can be said to come only from the Father as the font of divinity. It is important to note that the Eastern Fathers make a real distinction between procession (ἐκπόρευσις) and progression (προϊέναι), a distinction that Westerners - at least since the Medieval period - do not make, where the former term concerns the Spirit's origin as person coming from the Father alone as cause (αἰτία), while the latter term concerns the manifesting progression (προϊέναι) of the Spirit's energies from the Father through the Son, understood both temporally and eternally. That said, the division between the East and the West will continue until the West unequivocally affirms the monarchy of God the Father as the sole cause (αἰτία) of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and the sole cause of the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) [3], and although it does appear that the Roman authorities are moving in that direction, it is clear that they are reluctant to affirm the monarchy of God the Father as that doctrine has been traditionally understood in the East.


Notes:

[1] 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.

[2] Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), page 314.

[3] St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus, no. 2 (Greek text).
Novel idea? It was being taught as far as 600 -700 years before the great schism and the east knew about the wester teaching on filioque yet kept communion.
Yes, it is a novel idea, because the doctrine of the filioque continued to develop in the West and so the 13th - 15th century version of that doctrine is not the same as the doctrine held by the Carolingian divines or St. Augustine.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on September 16, 2013, 01:42:19 AM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.

Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this  :-\

Weasel words. I can cite right off the top of my head one serious theological study on the matter of the Filioque, Siecienski's book (simply titled, The Filioque), which shows rather well that the Alexandrian fathers did not teach the Son participating in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit, and that later Latin theologians, who could not grasp the difference in connotation between the verbs προειμι, εκχεω, and εκπορευω, were unable adequately to grasp their meaning, and were also thereby confused when the Greeks interpreted the writings of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius not to point towards the Son having a causal role in the Spirit's existence, but to point towards the Spirit's procession through the Son, and the Son's pouring forth and manifestation of the Spirit (Papadakis also argues this in Crisis in Byzantium, although he does not treat the topic as fully). Frankly, the Latins have always been out of their depth when it comes to the Filioque, because they were unable to understand the intricacies involved in the distinction between proceeding through and proceeding from, and the distinction between the three aforementioned verbs. Thomas Aquinas for example, has no better answer to the insistence by the Greeks that proceeding through is not identical to proceeding from than to exclaim somewhat exasperatedly that they do so out of intransigence.

A simple google search, is going to pick up a bunch of blogs written by amateur Roman Catholic apologists who demonstrate little more knowledge on the topic of the Filioque than the Latins did 800 years ago, and who have no interest in understanding how the Alexandrian fathers have traditionally been understood by Greek-speaking Christians, but only have interest in scoring some apologetics points. If you really want to be convincing, perhaps you could provide some citations from these "theological circles," (which of course should be credible theological circles, not amateurs writing on the web), which you claim believe that the Alexandrians taught the Filioque. And if you really wanted to be convincing (instead of appealing to unnamed theological circles, all of which apparently are of the opinion that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque, and whose opinions are readily available for access through a simple google search), you could even imbibe the arguments they use to support this claim, and attempt to show us through the use of reason how it is sound to believe that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque. But as it stands, pontificating on the matter will convince very few minds.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 16, 2013, 02:36:21 AM
To quote from Siecienski's book mentioned in the previous post, he notes:

Quote
In Epistula 55 Cyril seemingly did equate the two terms, but only in reference to the Spirit's relationship to the Father, since "the Spirit is poured forth (προχείται), that is, proceeds (εκπορεύεται), as from the fountain of God the Father and is bestowed on creation through the Son." [p. 232, n.114]

This is not the Latin filioque doctrine. Not by a long shot. Once again, the Latins are strainin' to do some explainin'. Forgive me if I, and the entire Church of Alexandria (no matter which communion you're looking at, because in this we agree), remains unconvinced that our Fathers taught this Latin idea.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 16, 2013, 02:44:14 AM
I wish there were a 'report to ialmisry' button underneath every post in the Orthodox-Catholic discussion forum.

There is a report to moderator, I can actually do something about infractions.  ISa can't

Haha, I know. It's just that I'd like to notify him about silly posts made by Catholics, not rule infractions :)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Nicene on September 16, 2013, 03:03:14 AM
I think he ignores the chief reason that the pope has no authority in of himself and by himself without council with the rest of the church to change and alter the creed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 16, 2013, 03:14:16 AM
I don't know about this and I'm sure there is an explanation if you read up. I'll research this.I checked a translator and uitgaan van translates into a lot of other things. The closest translation I could find was "assume" but there was no proceed. Are you sure this is the right phrase?

I'm positive. I know a thing or two about Dutch, and so should you, being a native of South Africa and all that.

The alternative Dutch translation used by the RC's is 'voortkomen uit' which, too, has the same connotations as ekporeuomai. I bet that the same is true for a lot of languages, not only Greek and Dutch, yet often the filioque is maintained.

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it

LOL. I am a Classics student.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 16, 2013, 08:24:23 AM
Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 08:43:27 AM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.

Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this  :-\

Weasel words. I can cite right off the top of my head one serious theological study on the matter of the Filioque, Siecienski's book (simply titled, The Filioque), which shows rather well that the Alexandrian fathers did not teach the Son participating in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit, and that later Latin theologians, who could not grasp the difference in connotation between the verbs προειμι, εκχεω, and εκπορευω, were unable adequately to grasp their meaning, and were also thereby confused when the Greeks interpreted the writings of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius not to point towards the Son having a causal role in the Spirit's existence, but to point towards the Spirit's procession through the Son, and the Son's pouring forth and manifestation of the Spirit (Papadakis also argues this in Crisis in Byzantium, although he does not treat the topic as fully). Frankly, the Latins have always been out of their depth when it comes to the Filioque, because they were unable to understand the intricacies involved in the distinction between proceeding through and proceeding from, and the distinction between the three aforementioned verbs. Thomas Aquinas for example, has no better answer to the insistence by the Greeks that proceeding through is not identical to proceeding from than to exclaim somewhat exasperatedly that they do so out of intransigence.

A simple google search, is going to pick up a bunch of blogs written by amateur Roman Catholic apologists who demonstrate little more knowledge on the topic of the Filioque than the Latins did 800 years ago, and who have no interest in understanding how the Alexandrian fathers have traditionally been understood by Greek-speaking Christians, but only have interest in scoring some apologetics points. If you really want to be convincing, perhaps you could provide some citations from these "theological circles," (which of course should be credible theological circles, not amateurs writing on the web), which you claim believe that the Alexandrians taught the Filioque. And if you really wanted to be convincing (instead of appealing to unnamed theological circles, all of which apparently are of the opinion that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque, and whose opinions are readily available for access through a simple google search), you could even imbibe the arguments they use to support this claim, and attempt to show us through the use of reason how it is sound to believe that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque. But as it stands, pontificating on the matter will convince very few minds.
there's always the sword
(http://history-world.org/Teutonic.jpg)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 16, 2013, 08:58:13 AM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 16, 2013, 09:04:02 AM
I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 16, 2013, 09:20:15 AM
Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 16, 2013, 09:22:31 AM
Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
I thought that is a given on oc.net.  It doesn't matter what the OP is, it always devolves into a generic argument on whatever the topic might be.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 09:43:17 AM
Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
The article doesn't say anything terribly original, but just recycles trash.  Except point 2, that the Vatican should keep the filioque because the Protestants do, which is so incredibly stupid that it doesn't warrant a lot of attention.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 16, 2013, 10:13:04 AM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 10:20:04 AM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
The council of Toledo did.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 16, 2013, 10:24:27 AM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 16, 2013, 10:34:55 AM
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
The council of Toledo did.

:)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 16, 2013, 10:49:42 AM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 16, 2013, 10:51:13 AM
I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Supposedly it elevates the Son to the same level as the Father by making the Holy Spirit proceed from Him also. On the other hand, it subordinates the HS to the Son...
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 10:54:17 AM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?
Yes.  It's pure topos with no basis in historic fact.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 16, 2013, 10:54:40 AM
Seems like this has turned into a pretty general filioque thread, without much connection to the article mentioned in the OP. Am I just stating an obvious fact that everyone else already realized?
The article doesn't say anything terribly original, but just recycles trash.  

As I said before, it exceeded my expectations, in terms of how bad it would be. (Although for the sake of full disclosure I should add that I read very little of it -- basically just the section headings.) If everyone agrees about that, then I guess there's no need to discuss the article further ... so I guess I agree with you.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 16, 2013, 10:57:35 AM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?
The council of Toledo did.

Not deliberately.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 16, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?

A miaphysite bishop from Syria who lived in the late 5th-century was the first to have the creed chanted in the liturgy iirc. So there was nothing to drop when the Arian crisis ended in the late 4th century.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 16, 2013, 11:15:07 AM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?

A miaphysite bishop from Syria who lived in the late 5th-century was the first to have the creed chanted in the liturgy iirc. So there was nothing to drop when the Arian crisis ended in the late 4th century.
Moreover, Rome could not drop the filioque from the recitation of the creed at the end of the Arian crisis because the filioque was not added to the creed in Rome until the 11th century.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on September 16, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?

There is a theory that the Quran originates from a non-Nicene Syriac lectionary, and that the existence of a prophet 'Muhammad' only comes later, after it was forgotten that Muhammad functions as a gerundive, which originally applied to Jesus, the messenger of God. Even if this theory is not true, St. John of Damascus quite clearly recognized the Islam of his time as being heavily influenced by Arianism.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 01:34:18 PM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Isn't there a theory that many Arians "morphed" into Muslims ?

There is a theory that the Quran originates from a non-Nicene Syriac lectionary, and that the existence of a prophet 'Muhammad' only comes later, after it was forgotten that Muhammad functions as a gerundive, which originally applied to Jesus, the messenger of God. Even if this theory is not true, St. John of Damascus quite clearly recognized the Islam of his time as being heavily influenced by Arianism.
Not really. There were no Arians to influence Muhammad or his followers.

That did not stop the Orthodox from blaming the Arians, however.

The Muslims thought that Christ was just a man, like the old Ebionite heresy.  The Arians thought He was an angelic being.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 01:46:34 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 16, 2013, 03:08:26 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.

I'm not a linguist, but if I recall my history of western civ. (the fact I took that subject dates me as an old fogey I suppose) spoken Greek was as, if not more common, as spoken Latin across the breadth of the undivided Empire and that while the local rulers governed with Latin it morphed by the fourth century into the precursors of modern Romance languages.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 03:30:50 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...
look up "tautology."
Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.
Hardly.  Southern Italy, for instance, was still speaking Greek.
Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon.
So the Vatican claims now.  Chalcedon, however, was convened because Eutyches and Pope Dioscoros and their council of Ephesus were judged according to standards the Council of Constantinople I set up.

Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Since no one was expressing any idea in Latin, your point is moot.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM
oh that verse is interesting because nowhere does it say The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father "ONLY". As such we too believe what is written  ;D

So because Jn 15.26 doesn't explicitly say that the Holy Spirit proceeds ONLY from the Father, we can come up with our own conclusions and add them to the faith?  Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels.  Maybe the Protestants are right about Matthew 1.25 after all.  

I'm sorry, but yours is a fairly worthless observation.  I hope you weren't serious.     

No the filioque is based upon other passages in scripture as the fathers explained in their quotes.
Its the faith of the fathers of Alexandria and the west. Even some Eastern ones too

Again make sure you know what is meant by the west and Alexandrians when they taught filioque as you will see its a tradition of the church.
The only Alexandrians who taught filioque were the Arians.  Neither OO nor EO have ever.

This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

The filioque was taught by Eunomius...

His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.

Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this  :-\

Weasel words. I can cite right off the top of my head one serious theological study on the matter of the Filioque, Siecienski's book (simply titled, The Filioque), which shows rather well that the Alexandrian fathers did not teach the Son participating in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit, and that later Latin theologians, who could not grasp the difference in connotation between the verbs προειμι, εκχεω, and εκπορευω, were unable adequately to grasp their meaning, and were also thereby confused when the Greeks interpreted the writings of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius not to point towards the Son having a causal role in the Spirit's existence, but to point towards the Spirit's procession through the Son, and the Son's pouring forth and manifestation of the Spirit (Papadakis also argues this in Crisis in Byzantium, although he does not treat the topic as fully). Frankly, the Latins have always been out of their depth when it comes to the Filioque, because they were unable to understand the intricacies involved in the distinction between proceeding through and proceeding from, and the distinction between the three aforementioned verbs. Thomas Aquinas for example, has no better answer to the insistence by the Greeks that proceeding through is not identical to proceeding from than to exclaim somewhat exasperatedly that they do so out of intransigence.

A simple google search, is going to pick up a bunch of blogs written by amateur Roman Catholic apologists who demonstrate little more knowledge on the topic of the Filioque than the Latins did 800 years ago, and who have no interest in understanding how the Alexandrian fathers have traditionally been understood by Greek-speaking Christians, but only have interest in scoring some apologetics points. If you really want to be convincing, perhaps you could provide some citations from these "theological circles," (which of course should be credible theological circles, not amateurs writing on the web), which you claim believe that the Alexandrians taught the Filioque. And if you really wanted to be convincing (instead of appealing to unnamed theological circles, all of which apparently are of the opinion that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque, and whose opinions are readily available for access through a simple google search), you could even imbibe the arguments they use to support this claim, and attempt to show us through the use of reason how it is sound to believe that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque. But as it stands, pontificating on the matter will convince very few minds.

Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism... I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true. The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.

The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again. Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach. Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true. A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.

I would quote some sources but anything that isn't orthodox is considered amateur and not true. Oh and I'll get in trouble with the moderator...AGAIN
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM
I don't know about this and I'm sure there is an explanation if you read up. I'll research this.I checked a translator and uitgaan van translates into a lot of other things. The closest translation I could find was "assume" but there was no proceed. Are you sure this is the right phrase?

I'm positive. I know a thing or two about Dutch, and so should you, being a native of South Africa and all that.

Why should I know about Dutch? Afrikaans is barely like Dutch and I speak no Afrikaans at all. Bit if I use the very little Afrikaans I know, "uitgaan van" should mean "outgoing from" which is more in line with Latin proceeds  than the Greek word.

Quote
The alternative Dutch translation used by the RC's is 'voortkomen uit' which, too, has the same connotations as ekporeuomai. I bet that the same is true for a lot of languages, not only Greek and Dutch, yet often the filioque is maintained.

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it

LOL. I am a Classics student.

Then I guess you should know
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???

Because it became part of the western tradition.

Now you gonna say that its is prohibited to change the creed and all when infact it prohibits the changing of the "faith" of the creed. Yet the creed has been changed even after this prohibition at Constantinople.

But lets not get into this. battling 50000 orthodox on one issue is tough enough... Wow
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

There was more than one type of Arianism you know
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.

I'm not a linguist, but if I recall my history of western civ. (the fact I took that subject dates me as an old fogey I suppose) spoken Greek was as, if not more common, as spoken Latin across the breadth of the undivided Empire and that while the local rulers governed with Latin it morphed by the fourth century into the precursors of modern Romance languages.

you are slightly mistaken. Latin was spoken in the west after the time of chalcedon. The creed was even received in Latin and by this time Latin had long become the language of the church.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 03:43:13 PM
Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.

So the statement "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding [procedens]" is perfectly in line with the Alexandrian theology, as expressed by her two greatest popes. Keep in mind that the term procedit/procedens (the best translation of St. Cyril's proienai) seeks only to express the "transmission" of the Essence of Divinity, and does not seek to denote ontological origination.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: PeterTheAleut on September 16, 2013, 03:46:11 PM
I would quote some sources but anything that isn't orthodox is considered amateur and not true. Oh and I'll get in trouble with the moderator...AGAIN
Not if you give proper credit to your sources. ;)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 16, 2013, 04:07:08 PM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???
Why didn't everyone drop the Nicene creed after the Arian crisis ended?

Why? Because the Nicean Creed is the expression of our Faith.  It is a reminder of what we believe in, and an answer to anyone wanting to know what our Faith stands for.....That's why!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 16, 2013, 04:09:07 PM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???

Because it became part of the western tradition.

Now you gonna say that its is prohibited to change the creed and all when infact it prohibits the changing of the "faith" of the creed. Yet the creed has been changed even after this prohibition at Constantinople.

But lets not get into this. battling 50000 orthodox on one issue is tough enough... Wow

Unity, its a pipe dream, viva la diference!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 04:10:46 PM
I don't know about this and I'm sure there is an explanation if you read up. I'll research this.I checked a translator and uitgaan van translates into a lot of other things. The closest translation I could find was "assume" but there was no proceed. Are you sure this is the right phrase?

I'm positive. I know a thing or two about Dutch, and so should you, being a native of South Africa and all that.

Why should I know about Dutch? Afrikaans is barely like Dutch and I speak no Afrikaans at all. Bit if I use the very little Afrikaans I know, "uitgaan van" should mean "outgoing from" which is more in line with Latin proceeds  than the Greek word.

Quote
The alternative Dutch translation used by the RC's is 'voortkomen uit' which, too, has the same connotations as ekporeuomai. I bet that the same is true for a lot of languages, not only Greek and Dutch, yet often the filioque is maintained.

Yet what I told about the Greek true. Read up on it

LOL. I am a Classics student.

Then I guess you should know
and he does.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on September 16, 2013, 04:11:18 PM
His theology does not accommodate the idea . Its is nothing near to what the catholic church teaches.

Further all theological circles admit Alexandria and the Latins taught filioque. A simple google search shows this  :-\

Weasel words. I can cite right off the top of my head one serious theological study on the matter of the Filioque, Siecienski's book (simply titled, The Filioque), which shows rather well that the Alexandrian fathers did not teach the Son participating in the hypostatic origination of the Holy Spirit, and that later Latin theologians, who could not grasp the difference in connotation between the verbs προειμι, εκχεω, and εκπορευω, were unable adequately to grasp their meaning, and were also thereby confused when the Greeks interpreted the writings of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius not to point towards the Son having a causal role in the Spirit's existence, but to point towards the Spirit's procession through the Son, and the Son's pouring forth and manifestation of the Spirit (Papadakis also argues this in Crisis in Byzantium, although he does not treat the topic as fully). Frankly, the Latins have always been out of their depth when it comes to the Filioque, because they were unable to understand the intricacies involved in the distinction between proceeding through and proceeding from, and the distinction between the three aforementioned verbs. Thomas Aquinas for example, has no better answer to the insistence by the Greeks that proceeding through is not identical to proceeding from than to exclaim somewhat exasperatedly that they do so out of intransigence.

A simple google search, is going to pick up a bunch of blogs written by amateur Roman Catholic apologists who demonstrate little more knowledge on the topic of the Filioque than the Latins did 800 years ago, and who have no interest in understanding how the Alexandrian fathers have traditionally been understood by Greek-speaking Christians, but only have interest in scoring some apologetics points. If you really want to be convincing, perhaps you could provide some citations from these "theological circles," (which of course should be credible theological circles, not amateurs writing on the web), which you claim believe that the Alexandrians taught the Filioque. And if you really wanted to be convincing (instead of appealing to unnamed theological circles, all of which apparently are of the opinion that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque, and whose opinions are readily available for access through a simple google search), you could even imbibe the arguments they use to support this claim, and attempt to show us through the use of reason how it is sound to believe that the Alexandrian fathers taught the Filioque. But as it stands, pontificating on the matter will convince very few minds.

Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism... I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true. The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.

Yes, the pre-schism West taught the same thing as Alexandria and the preschism East did, namely that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but not that the Son participates in the hypostatic origination of the Spirit.

The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.

They claim they do not, and yet the Council of Florence teaches explicitly that it is a doctrine of faith that the Son should be accorded as cause of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, something foreign to the Alexandrian fathers, the Greek fathers, and even the ancient and venerable Latin fathers who in using the filioque never intended to teach such a thing (as St. Maximus the Confessor himself witnesses).

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again. Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach. Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true. A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.

If they had proved their case, instead of trying to steamroll over the concerns of the East, then we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. But they haven't yet proved their case. Even the official 'clarification' on the Filioque (which is anything but clear) accomplishes little, because it basically straddles the fence the entire time without discussing what is the crux of the matter, namely, how does the confession that the Son is cause of the Spirit's subsistence not conflict with the monarchy of the Father, who alone is Cause.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 04:18:12 PM
Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism...
LOL.  The very phrase reeks of Ultramontanist revisionism.

I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true.
When are you going to start?

The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.
Like black and white.

The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.
they just reduce it to the monarchy of Burger King.

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again.
Repeating it doesn't count.

Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach.
We understand it; hence our rejection of it.

Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true.
Odd how that doesn't work when it gets too near to the supremacy of your supreme pontiff.

A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.
Yes, Orthodoxy and heresy are too different things.

I would quote some sources but anything that isn't orthodox is considered amateur and not true. Oh and I'll get in trouble with the moderator...AGAIN
(http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1351281664992_2646062.png)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 04:22:14 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...
look up "tautology."
Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.
Hardly.  Southern Italy, for instance, was still speaking Greek.

At the time of Nicea, they knew Greek. By the time of Constantinople, many knew Greek, but not all. The ones who knew Greek would likely have been in Italy. The rest of the Roman empire by this time would have used Latin, the language of the common people

Quote
Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon.
So the Vatican claims now.  Chalcedon, however, was convened because Eutyches and Pope Dioscoros and their council of Ephesus were judged according to standards the Council of Constantinople I set up.

ok....  the only creed in the west before chalcedon was the Nicene crees. The Constantinople one came after Chalcedon and was receives in Latin.

Quote
Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Since no one was expressing any idea in Latin, your point is moot.

except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 16, 2013, 04:22:14 PM
Also what should be considerrd..., take the passage "proceeds from both as from one principle" in the context of Trinitarian theology. In order to understand what the passage means, one must necessarily go beyond it's Pneumatological significance. You're thinking only in terms of the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father and Son. It seems you are forgetting to take into account the relationship of the Son to the Father. You can assume all you want from the ambiguity of the text in question that there are two Sources of the Spirit, but there is no way you can inject that ambiguity on the Catholic teaching that the Father is the Source of the Son. My point is that even if the Son can be mistakenly interpreted to be a source of Spirit, the Father must still be the actual Source of the Spirit, because the Father is the Source of the Son.

 Read the official clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM) back in 1995. I very strongly recommend you read the whole thing, though I will give you a pertinent quote here:
"On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner."

Read the original conciliar documents. The Council of Florence made a specific distinction between the term "Source" and the term "cause." In fact, the term "principle" is grammatically connected with the term "cause," not the term "Source." The Son shares as the causating principle of the Spirit, but the Son does not share in the Father's character as Source. There is only ONE Source in the Trinity according to the Latin Catholic Church, as with ALL the Catholic Churches. This important distinction between "cause" and "Source" is intimately related to the distinction between procedit and ekporeusai, on the one hand, as well as the distinction between proving the divinity of the Spirit through consubstantiality and proving His divinity through origin.

To be concise, the following two sets of words basically define the distinction between the Eastern and Western understanding on the matter, both of which are completely Catholic and Orthodox:

CAUSE, PROCEDIT, CONSUBSTANTIALITY, OUSIA

SOURCE, EKPOREUSAI, ORIGIN, HYPOSTASIS
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 04:22:53 PM


This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

Maybe all well and good, but Dogmas at the time were only Dogmas because the whole church approved it via Council.   The Western church rightly should have dropped this 'Filioque' after the Arianism problem faded away.  It wasn't necessary anymore.  This is the rub.  Why didn't Rome recind this in the Creed if it was only used against the Arian heresy???

Because it became part of the western tradition.
Heresy isn't Tradition.
Now you gonna say that its is prohibited to change the creed and all when infact it prohibits the changing of the "faith" of the creed.

another strike against filioque.
Yet the creed has been changed even after this prohibition at Constantinople.
your creed has, our Creed has not.

But lets not get into this. battling 50000 orthodox on one issue is tough enough... Wow
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2009/10/7/1254930250269/Scene-from-Alexander-Nevs-001.jpg)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 16, 2013, 04:23:37 PM
Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

Yeah right....

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 04:24:19 PM
This is rubbish

Filioque was specifically taught to defeat Arianism and prove the divinity of all three persons.

I think the Arians were pretty decisively defeated after Nicaea save for a few Germans in Spain.  If the Nicaea-Constantinopolian Creed was enough to do that, why did it need emendation or "clarification" as RCs would say?

I fail to see how the filioque adds any additional defense to trinitarian doctrine that is not covered in other parts of the Creed.

Precisely.

Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

There was more than one type of Arianism you know
and filioque defeated none of them.

I'd like to know when this story that the filioque was an anti-Arian measure was dreamed up.  I don't recall seeing it in the sources.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 04:25:11 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...

Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon. Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.

I'm not a linguist, but if I recall my history of western civ. (the fact I took that subject dates me as an old fogey I suppose) spoken Greek was as, if not more common, as spoken Latin across the breadth of the undivided Empire and that while the local rulers governed with Latin it morphed by the fourth century into the precursors of modern Romance languages.

you are slightly mistaken. Latin was spoken in the west after the time of chalcedon. The creed was even received in Latin and by this time Latin had long become the language of the church.
the language of what church?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 16, 2013, 04:28:12 PM
Without addressing the bit of byzantine triumphalism... I'm not here to,convince bur rather to defend what's true. The west and Alexandria taught the same thing. Yet the west and Alexandria expressed differently.

My Church has dealt with both Byzantine and Latin triumphalism, so I know it when I see it, and this isn't it.  All Eastern Churches disagree with Rome on this.  And even Rome's position "evolved" in time.  

Quote
The problem here is A HUGE amount of time is spent accusing Latins of teaching things they actually don't and then claim that other never taught this. Yet even the Latins themselves never teach against the monarchy of the father.

Further the Latins have proved the truth of their case tile and time again. Yet the east continually misunderstands what we actually teach. Simply Latin theology is foreign to eastern theology yet both are true. A lot of the time we are speaking about two different things.

The problem, not just here but in many places and times, is that the Roman Church (and/or its apologists) talks out of both sides of its mouth.  How can we know or understand what "the Latins themselves" teach when they give different answers depending on who's asking the questions?  I can find sources which argue for a theologically Orthodox version of the Filioque, and I can find sources which argue against the monarchy of the Father, etc.  Depending on whom they're trying to convince, the RC's will give one or the other answer.  

In contrast, the Orthodox are quite happy to give a consistent answer and wish all the best for those who disagree.  We're not trying to divide and conquer.    
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 16, 2013, 04:35:22 PM
Leave to the Latins to claim that they understand the Alexandrians better than the Alexandrians understand themselves. But, luckily for those of us who are actually in the Church in question, our bishops explain it quite simply indeed (http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=1046&catid=542), in that there is a difference between procession and temporal sending. The Creed deals with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father (period). Why the Latins cannot seem to keep them straight is beyond me. Probably because they have this mess they call the filioque that seems to entertain heresy under the guise of "clarification", but only serves to further muddy the waters. Take note of the length of the EWTN library link presented by Wandile compared to the very simple answer given by HG Bishop Youssef above. When you teach the plain truth of the matter, you don't need to be so convoluted.

Neither St. Cyril nor St. Athanasius (who did not write the Creed the Latins have falsely attributed to him, unless he miraculously happened to live in Gaul some 100+ years after his own death), nor any other Alexandrian saint, taught the Latin Filioque doctrine, and we, following them, do not teach it either. It is foreign to Alexandrian theological tradition, whether expressed in Greek, Coptic, or Latin (see: St. Arsenius, St. Maximus, St. Domatius). Heresy is always foreign to right belief.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 16, 2013, 04:41:09 PM
Read the original conciliar documents. The Council of Florence made a specific distinction between the term "Source" and the term "cause." In fact, the term "principle" is grammatically connected with the term "cause," not the term "Source."

Cause in Greek is αἰτία. You seem to connect principium with αἰτία. The Eastern Fathers taught that only the Father is the αἰτία of the Holy Spirit. So that's not a strong argument you have there.

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 16, 2013, 04:46:14 PM
except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination
, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.

So is it your contention that, when translating the Creed from Greek to Latin and later adding Filioque, the Latins decided that, contrary to the clear meaning of the Greek, they didn't want to talk about the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father, but instead wanted to talk about "motion"?  How is that not changing the rules in the middle of the game?    
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on September 16, 2013, 04:52:03 PM
Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

No, procedere is a term with meanings which can accommodate both εκπορευω and προειμι, and that is precisely where the Latins ran into trouble, because they later came to misinterpret passages in Latin translation to refer to the causal origination of the Spirit when in the original Greek they only refer to the Spirit's manifestation through the Son.

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)

You took that quote out of context. To give a bit more of the immediate context, read this fuller quote, "He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence ? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son [Matthew 3:17],' and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm

St. Athanasius here is speaking of sanctification, which itself is an energy. His argument follows this form: if the Son were a creature, then it should be that he participates in sanctification by the operation of the Holy Spirit, but since it is said that the Spirit receives of the Son in the Scriptures, it is absurd to think that the Son is sanctified by the Spirit, but rather, it must be that the Son is holy by participation in the Father. He must partake of the Father and not something external of the Father, and he therefore partakes of the Father's essence. But, unlike what you claim, St. Athanasius is not teaching that the Son transmits the divine nature to the Holy Spirit. Rather he is speaking of the ordering of the trinitarian hypostases, and how all operations of the Godhead (the example here being sanctification) have their cause from the father, are prepared by the Son, and are perfected in the Holy Spirit.

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.

I have read both of those epistles, and he does not teach that the Son transmits divinity to the Spirit in either one.


Keep in mind that the term procedit/procedens (the best translation of St. Cyril's proienai) seeks only to express the "transmission" of the Essence of Divinity, and does not seek to denote ontological origination.

There is no such thing as a transmission of the divine nature, as if it were some material thing which could be partitioned. The divine nature is simple, and can only be shared in a sort of natural communion between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and the Father alone is the cause of this natural communion and sharing of the Divine Nature (i.e., the monarchy of the Father). The Son himself is not the cause of the Spirit's sharing in the divine nature, despite existing in a mediate position between the Father and the Spirit according to operation, which is why the Eastern Fathers who confessed that the Spirit proceeds through the Son were always careful to add that the Spirit's proceeding through the Son in no way severs the Spirit's natural relation to the Father, because it is from the Father (as the sole Cause) alone that the Spirit shares in the divine nature.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 16, 2013, 04:56:58 PM
except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination
, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.

So is it your contention that, when translating the Creed from Greek to Latin and later adding Filioque, the Latins decided that, contrary to the clear meaning of the Greek, they didn't want to talk about the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father, but instead wanted to talk about "motion"?  How is that not changing the rules in the middle of the game?    
This is the key to the problem. The Latins have mistranslated the Greek text of the creed and created a new doctrine in the process. Since it is admitted by both sides that the term ἐκπορευόμενον in the original Greek text of the creed is referring to the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father, it seems inappropriate to insert the filioque into this portion of the creed, because it alters the original meaning of the text as written by the Fathers at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 05:15:09 PM
Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).
Since the Athanasian Creed was fabricated in Latin, your point is moot, as no translation was involved.

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)
to fill in your dots....
Quote
All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, ‘This is My Beloved Son,’ and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father.

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.
Mind giving us Pope St. Athanasius' own words, and not your own misinterpretation?

So the statement "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding [procedens]" is perfectly in line with the Alexandrian theology, as expressed by her two greatest popes. Keep in mind that the term procedit/procedens (the best translation of St. Cyril's proienai) seeks only to express the "transmission" of the Essence of Divinity, and does not seek to denote ontological origination.
proienai has nothing to do with essence.  So the rest of your misrepresentation of the Fathers of Alexandria is perfectly in line with your heresy.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 16, 2013, 05:22:19 PM
Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

No, procedere is a term with meanings which can accommodate both εκπορευω and προειμι, and that is precisely where the Latins ran into trouble, because they later came to misinterpret passages in Latin translation to refer to the causal origination of the Spirit when in the original Greek they only refer to the Spirit's manifestation through the Son.
Maybe the Latins should come up with a new way of translating the portion of the creed that concerns the Holy Spirit, and in the process truly clarify matters and help to bring about a real common understanding of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father alone.

Something like this:  "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui egreditur ex Patre, qui cum Patre et Filio adoratur et glorificatur . . ."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 16, 2013, 05:24:32 PM
Two things should be noted about the following quotation from St. Cyril of Alexandria:

"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).

First, this text does not speak about the Holy Spirit's eternal hypostatic origin from the Father; instead, it speaks about His work of conforming the Christian faithful to God (i.e., an economic reality); and second, the text can also be translated from the Greek in the following manner: "Since the Holy Spirit when He is in us effects our being conformed to God, and He actually goes forth of the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the divine essence, essentially in it, and of it coming forth." This translation has the added benefit of preventing confusion by avoiding the Latin tendency to equate all the various Greek terms that speak about the Spirit's "movement" or "sending" from the Father through the Son, with His procession (ἐκπόρευσις) of origin, which comes only from the Father.

Pope St. Cyril of Alexendria explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son (btw, the Latin original of the line in question of the Athanasian Creed uses the word procedens - if you have not made the connection yet, the Latin procedit is actually a more equivalent translation of the Greek proienai intead of the Greek ekporeusai).

No, procedere is a term with meanings which can accommodate both εκπορευω and προειμι, and that is precisely where the Latins ran into trouble, because they later came to misinterpret passages in Latin translation to refer to the causal origination of the Spirit when in the original Greek they only refer to the Spirit's manifestation through the Son.

St. Athanasius also taught about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son:
"All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son...When the Father says, "This is my beloved Son," and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father."
(Discourse 1 Against the Arians, Ch. V)

You took that quote out of context. To give a bit more of the immediate context, read this fuller quote, "He, of course, as well as others, must be called Son and God and Wisdom only by participation; for thus all other creatures consist, and by sanctification are glorified. You have to tell us then, of what He is partaker. All other things partake of the Spirit, but He, according to you, of what is He partaker? Of the Spirit? Nay, rather the Spirit Himself takes from the Son, as He Himself says; and it is not reasonable to say that the latter is sanctified by the former. Therefore it is the Father that He partakes; for this only remains to say. But this, which is participated, what is it or whence ? If it be something external provided by the Father, He will not now be partaker of the Father, but of what is external to Him; and no longer will He be even second after the Father, since He has before Him this other; nor can He be called Son of the Father, but of that, as partaking which He has been called Son and God. And if this be unseemly and irreligious, when the Father says, 'This is My Beloved Son [Matthew 3:17],' and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father." http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm

St. Athanasius here is speaking of sanctification, which itself is an energy. His argument follows this form: if the Son were a creature, then it should be that he participates in sanctification by the operation of the Holy Spirit, but since it is said that the Spirit receives of the Son in the Scriptures, it is absurd to think that the Son is sanctified by the Spirit, but rather, it must be that the Son is holy by participation in the Father. He must partake of the Father and not something external of the Father, and he therefore partakes of the Father's essence. But, unlike what you claim, St. Athanasius is not teaching that the Son transmits the divine nature to the Holy Spirit. Rather he is speaking of the ordering of the trinitarian hypostases, and how all operations of the Godhead (the example here being sanctification) have their cause from the father, are prepared by the Son, and are perfected in the Holy Spirit.

In his Epistles 56 and 61, St. Athanasius also asserts that the Arian's heresy against the Son is also a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if the Son is not Divine, then Divinity would not have been transmitted to the Spirit, and the Spirit would be a creature.

I have read both of those epistles, and he does not teach that the Son transmits divinity to the Spirit in either one.


How could Wandile know that since he just does copy and pasting from internet apologist websites.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 16, 2013, 05:28:20 PM
except that the Latins received the creed in Latin and expresses theology as much. Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination
, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.

So is it your contention that, when translating the Creed from Greek to Latin and later adding Filioque, the Latins decided that, contrary to the clear meaning of the Greek, they didn't want to talk about the Spirit's eternal procession from the Father, but instead wanted to talk about "motion"?  How is that not changing the rules in the middle of the game?    
This is the key to the problem. The Latins have mistranslated the Greek text of the creed and created a new doctrine in the process. Since it is admitted by both sides that the term ἐκπορευόμενον in the original Greek text of the creed is referring to the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father, it seems inappropriate to insert the filioque into this portion of the creed, because it alters the original meaning of the text as written by the Fathers at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).

Exactly, if the filioque would be heresy in greek then even if it was not the case in the latin version of the creed, that would mean the creed is not the same, since it is not talking about what the greek speaking fathers of Constantinople had written.  And so, the vaticanist creed is invalid and heretical by nature.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ErmyCath on September 16, 2013, 05:41:30 PM
I've noticed that quite a number of stock quotes from the Fathers supporting Roman doctrines include ellipses.  And, when the ellipses are removed, the doctrine sought to be proven with the quotation is disproven. I've noticed this about papal claims, and it is also showing up here.

(I want to thank the poster above who discussed the difference between Roman apologists and theologians. That was a very helpful post for me at this particular time.)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 05:41:45 PM
irrelevant as the latin word for proceed is word in common language as well even at that time.
Oh?  Languages such as what?
Latin...
look up "tautology."
Quote
Further the creed of Constantinople never reached the west until Chalcedon when Latin was spoken by all.
Everyone at Chalcedon spoke Greek.  It would seem the same at Constantionple I, which sent a letter to several bishops of the West with the Creed in 382.

Latin was spoken by all in the west.
Hardly.  Southern Italy, for instance, was still speaking Greek.

At the time of Nicea, they knew Greek. By the time of Constantinople, many knew Greek, but not all. The ones who knew Greek would likely have been in Italy. The rest of the Roman empire by this time would have used Latin, the language of the common people
The plurality of the common people in the Roman Empire spoke Greek.  Church affairs throughout the Empire were conducted almost, if not, exclusively in Greek.

Officially it was received by Rome at the time of chalcedon.
So the Vatican claims now.  Chalcedon, however, was convened because Eutyches and Pope Dioscoros and their council of Ephesus were judged according to standards the Council of Constantinople I set up.
ok....  the only creed in the west before chalcedon was the Nicene crees. The Constantinople one came after Chalcedon and was receives in Latin.
Constantinople set the seal of the Fathers on the Creed in 381.  Pope Dioscoros convened his council of Ephesus in 449, and the Fathers convened the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Secondly the word for "proceed" in Latin accommodates the idea and not the Greek word due to what the words mean.
Since no one was expressing any idea in Latin, your point is moot.
except that the Latins received the creed in Latin
no, the Latins received it in Greek and translated it in Latin, and did so correctly at Rome-without filioque.
and expresses theology as much.
Latin, like any language, can express Orthodoxy and heresy.

Further you can't doge the point because the word is the the issue at hand. Stop trying to avoid this truth of this issue. Procedit is the issue as it does not connote origin but motion.
and since the Fathers who wrote the Creed were using the Lord's Own words on the origin of the Spirit, your point, if you had one, would be irrelevant.

Proceeds" in the original Latin Creed is procedit
you mean the creed of Toledo?  It's not the original Latin Creed, which Pope Leo III put up in both the original Greek and the Latin derivative.

"Proceeds" in the original Greek Creed is ekporeusai
fixed that for you, to avoid redundancy.

Both ekporeusai and procedit can mean "to go forth," but ekporeusai denotes something that procedit does not - namely, the concept of ontological origination.
which is why the Lord chose it and the Fathers kept it.

The difference can be perceived between the two phrases:

"I proceeded from the house to go play." and "I proceeded from my mother at birth."

The first only denotes a going forth, but the second denotes a going forth in terms of ontological origination.

If ekporeusai and procedit were equivalent, then I can see where the subordination argument comes in because the Son would share in the Father's arche.

But procedit only refers to "a going forth" not an origination, So what is "going forth" (procedit) from Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit? The Essence of divinity. But from Whom does this Essence of divinity originate (ekporeusai) that goes forth to the Holy Spirit through the Son? The Father alone.
you are, like the Vatican, confused over "origin," "ontology" and "essence," none of which come second hand.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 06:06:07 PM
Also what should be considerrd..., take the passage "proceeds from both as from one principle"
better yet, why don't you toss it?

proceeds from one principle =/= proceeds as from one principle

in the context of Trinitarian theology.
it does not exist within Trinitarian theology.

In order to understand what the passage means, one must necessarily go beyond it's Pneumatological significance.

yes, heresy is always wanting to go "beyond" God.

You're thinking only in terms of the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Father and Son. It seems you are forgetting to take into account the relationship of the Son to the Father.
Although the Spirit is equal to the Son, Spirit=Son.

You can assume all you want from the ambiguity of the text in question that there are two Sources of the Spirit
you can assUme all you want.  It's your heresy.

but there is no way you can inject that ambiguity on the Catholic teaching that the Father is the Source of the Son. My point is that even if the Son can be mistakenly interpreted to be a source of Spirit, the Father must still be the actual Source of the Spirit, because the Father is the Source of the Son.
so the Spirit is begotten. H-E-R-E-S-Y.

Read the official clarification on Filioque promulgated by HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM) back in 1995. I very strongly recommend you read the whole thing
you assUme we haven't.

though I will give you a pertinent quote here:
"On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner."
and from the Son second hand, if the filioque is to be believed.
Read the original conciliar documents. The Council of Florence made a specific distinction between the term "Source" and the term "cause."
so they muddled and conflated.

In fact, the term "principle" is grammatically connected with the term "cause," not the term "Source." The Son shares as the causating principle of the Spirit, but the Son does not share in the Father's character as Source.

because filioque is a lie.

There is only ONE Source in the Trinity according to the Latin Catholic Church, as with ALL the Catholic Churches. This important distinction between "cause" and "Source"

a distinction NO Catholic Church makes, as it would be stricken from the Orthodox diptychs.
is intimately related to the distinction between procedit and ekporeusai, on the one hand, as well as the distinction between proving the divinity of the Spirit through consubstantiality and proving His divinity through origin.
(http://images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/0-999/488/800/Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_329135.jpg)

To be concise, the following two sets of words basically define the distinction between the Eastern and Western understanding on the matter, both of which are completely Catholic and Orthodox:

CAUSE, PROCEDIT, CONSUBSTANTIALITY, OUSIA

SOURCE, EKPOREUSAI, ORIGIN, HYPOSTASIS
Quote
Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων·
φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.
Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα
ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.
Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.
Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός.
Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζῳοποιόν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,
τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν.
Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
Ἀμήν.
Quote
Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
Descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
Passus, et sepúltus est,
Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
Cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
Qui ex Patre  :police: procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
Et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.
HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI
I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: stanley123 on September 16, 2013, 06:49:17 PM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 07:06:35 PM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 16, 2013, 08:11:51 PM
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
Sending and proceeding are not synonyms in the Greek language of the New Testament. It would be helpful if the West would come up with a way to distinguish between the procession of origin of the Spirit, which comes only from the Father, and His movement from the Father through the Son.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: stanley123 on September 16, 2013, 11:00:48 PM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 16, 2013, 11:17:26 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 16, 2013, 11:19:52 PM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 16, 2013, 11:27:39 PM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.

The Creed was not adopted so that we might by convoluted, silly analogy affirm the Orthodox faith.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: lovesupreme on September 16, 2013, 11:44:22 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Yeah, but Jesus didn't really mean that. See, He was speaking in Aramaic, and to say that the Spirit proceeds from Him would have been heresy, so he politely omitted it while winking at the apostles and nudging them in the ribs.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on September 17, 2013, 12:54:39 AM
A better alternative:

http://dropthefilioque.org/
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: lovesupreme on September 17, 2013, 01:09:48 AM
Can I www.bakethefilioque.com instead?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: stanley123 on September 17, 2013, 01:48:50 AM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 17, 2013, 02:08:49 AM
They have not thus far made such an argument, though. If I remember my RCIA classes well enough, the thing that is supposed to save the filioque is not two different senses of "proceeds", but rather the qualification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son "as from one principle" (read: it's not dual procession because the Latins say it isn't). This is what the current RC catechism says, and in that it is in concord with the teaching on the Holy Spirit as proclaimed at the Council of Florence in 1438, which says: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration" (see CCC 246 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm)). That's your tradition, not this newfangled "let's play around with the verb so as to give ourselves a context in which to keep this thing that is clearly against the tradition of the whole Church".

Quit moving the goal posts 575 years on. It's not helping.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 02:15:08 AM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
embracing the Truth would be much simpler.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: stanley123 on September 17, 2013, 02:33:01 AM
They have not thus far made such an argument, though. If I remember my RCIA classes well enough, the thing that is supposed to save the filioque is not two different senses of "proceeds", but rather the qualification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son "as from one principle" (read: it's not dual procession because the Latins say it isn't). This is what the current RC catechism says, and in that it is in concord with the teaching on the Holy Spirit as proclaimed at the Council of Florence in 1438, which says: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration" (see CCC 246 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm)). That's your tradition, not this newfangled "let's play around with the verb so as to give ourselves a context in which to keep this thing that is clearly against the tradition of the whole Church".

Quit moving the goal posts 575 years on. It's not helping.
I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.
As far as not helping is concerned, are you sure that you or anyone here really wants to help unify the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: stanley123 on September 17, 2013, 02:37:18 AM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
embracing the Truth would be much simpler.
Is it not the truth that the HS was sent by Jesus? Do you say that this is not the Truth? How do you apply Occam's razor to the fact that the HS was sent by Jesus?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: LBK on September 17, 2013, 02:50:25 AM

I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 :o :o ???

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: lovesupreme on September 17, 2013, 02:58:18 AM
I personally think that this thread has set back RC-EO internet apologist relations back by at least fifty years.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 17, 2013, 03:14:33 AM
I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.

That's funny; they sure did when they were teaching it. That's kind of the whole point of the classes. And even if it weren't, I linked to your official catechism via the Vatican's own website. If the RCIA classes aren't 'definitive' for some reason, surely what the Vatican publishes and puts on its own website must be.

Quote
As far as not helping is concerned, are you sure that you or anyone here really wants to help unify the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?

I can't speak for other people, but I would think that any RC-EO reunion initiatives wouldn't include me no matter what I think about it. I will put it this way: Any union that may take place between the RCC and any church that is not itself must be on the basis of shared faith. Since the RCC does not share the Orthodox faith in the first place, all the wanting in the world will not unite it with the Orthodox Church. We cannot help you get rid of doctrine that separates your church from the Orthodox faith that you're determined to keep regardless of the fact that no Orthodox Church will accept such false doctrines.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 17, 2013, 07:18:20 AM
I personally think that this thread has set back RC-EO internet apologist relations back by at least fifty years.

Nah, it's just a regurgitation of the same ole....... same ole...... Since most of us have a minimal understanding of the teachings of our own respective churches, we have little if any concerning the teachings of others. We (myself included) are all good at reciting or clipping and pasting from our catechisms and we lace  our basic knowledge with mighty opinions which are almost always based on apologia and for some, fine tuned with the passion of polemic.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 09:21:37 AM
There is a real difference between excluding the Filioque from the recitation of the Creed, and rejecting the dogma as heretical.
Perhaps this issue will be resolved eventually as a language problem according to which the word "proceeds" means different things in the two cases:
HS proceeds from the Father.
HS proceeds from the Son.
I think that the Bible says that the Son will send the HS, and "proceeds" could be interpreted as referring to this sending.
making it Father AND Son leaves no wiggle room for "language issues."
It might seem so, but sometimes there are ways out which are not apparent at first sight.  Even though it does say the HS proceeds from the Father and from the Son, the word proceeds could have a different meaning when applied to the procession from the Father versus the procession from the Son. To reduce it to a silly example in the English language, suppose someone said that aid for the reconstruction of the city block after the disastrous hurricane is proceeding from the federal government and from the local government. Proceeding might mean two different things here.  The money may not come in the same way from the federal as from the local. The local might just reevaluate their budget for police and fire assistance, so that the money does not proceed directly to the victims, whereas the federal help might involve giving a certain amount of monetary financial aid directly to the people involved in the tragedy. Aid is proceeding from both federal and local, but in one case it is direct financial money in the pocket of the victims, whereas in the other case it is indirect aid in the form of a budgetary swap to the advantage of the fire and police departments.
Apply Okham's Razor.
Occam's razor is not a universal principle that applies in every case, especially in theological discussions. I am only stating an opinion that a possible way out for the Roman Church is to say that the word proceeds is used differently in the two cases.
embracing the Truth would be much simpler.
Is it not the truth that the HS was sent by Jesus? Do you say that this is not the Truth? How do you apply Occam's razor to the fact that the HS was sent by Jesus?
Apply the Gospel Truth of the Creed: the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from Him alone.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 09:27:10 AM

I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 :o :o ???

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.

Well, at least in the US, parish RCIA classes are notorious for being hit or miss, mostly miss.  On that, I would agree with Stanley.  But I think it's disingenuous for him to focus on the RCIA anecdote and ignore Dzheremi's reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 246 says exactly what Dzheremi claims.  If the CCC is not a/the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology, then really, what is?  

Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

In another post, I spoke of how RC apologists will give different answers to questions such as Filioque depending on who's asking, and they have definitive sources for contradictory answers.  If you call them on it, they'll insist they're right, that we don't understand, etc., but those aren't the reasons.  It's because they've placed so much dogmatic faith in an office and the man holding it that their belief system would crumble if the papacy were discredited.  The papacy is a sacred cow, so you can never question it.  That's why rebellion against papal authority is the only real heresy in Roman Catholicism.  The current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was widely criticised upon his appointment for his views against the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; nevertheless, he's the top dogmatic theologian in their Church.  But the SSPX is "canonically irregular", "do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church", etc., etc., because their founder ordained bishops without a papal mandate (that there was only one ordaining bishop never factors in as a problem) and he didn't approve of what he felt were liberal excesses in the post-Vatican II Church, a papally driven and endorsed institution.  

This is a real problem for Roman Catholicism, the elevation of the papacy to such a central place in RC teaching that the whole thing would fall apart without it.    
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 17, 2013, 09:57:00 AM
They have not thus far made such an argument, though. If I remember my RCIA classes well enough, the thing that is supposed to save the filioque is not two different senses of "proceeds", but rather the qualification that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son "as from one principle" (read: it's not dual procession because the Latins say it isn't). This is what the current RC catechism says, and in that it is in concord with the teaching on the Holy Spirit as proclaimed at the Council of Florence in 1438, which says: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration" (see CCC 246 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm)). That's your tradition, not this newfangled "let's play around with the verb so as to give ourselves a context in which to keep this thing that is clearly against the tradition of the whole Church".

Quit moving the goal posts 575 years on. It's not helping.
I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.
As far as not helping is concerned, are you sure that you or anyone here really wants to help unify the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches?

Yes i really want tp help it, you submit to thhe Truth of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, that is to us and it is done.

@Mor Ephrem

Quote
Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

They will tell you we need also the Pope because one must be in communion with him blablabla, all of those points being out of mind since St Meletius or the Western Schism etc. They will say we must be in communion with the Pope. Then what about St Meletius? Well we never heared about him, it is the first time on this forum  :D
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on September 17, 2013, 12:01:22 PM
The issue is whether the Father is the sole source/originator (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of the Spirit or not. Whether procedit in Latin can mean send is an entirely different issue.

The question is this: if we use the Greek word ekporeuesthai to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit, instead of the word procedit would it be heresy?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 17, 2013, 12:26:19 PM

I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 :o :o ???

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.

Well, at least in the US, parish RCIA classes are notorious for being hit or miss, mostly miss.  On that, I would agree with Stanley.  But I think it's disingenuous for him to focus on the RCIA anecdote and ignore Dzheremi's reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 246 says exactly what Dzheremi claims.  If the CCC is not a/the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology, then really, what is?  

Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

In another post, I spoke of how RC apologists will give different answers to questions such as Filioque depending on who's asking, and they have definitive sources for contradictory answers.  If you call them on it, they'll insist they're right, that we don't understand, etc., but those aren't the reasons.  It's because they've placed so much dogmatic faith in an office and the man holding it that their belief system would crumble if the papacy were discredited.  The papacy is a sacred cow, so you can never question it.  That's why rebellion against papal authority is the only real heresy in Roman Catholicism.  The current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was widely criticised upon his appointment for his views against the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; nevertheless, he's the top dogmatic theologian in their Church.  But the SSPX is "canonically irregular", "do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church", etc., etc., because their founder ordained bishops without a papal mandate (that there was only one ordaining bishop never factors in as a problem) and he didn't approve of what he felt were liberal excesses in the post-Vatican II Church, a papally driven and endorsed institution.  

This is a real problem for Roman Catholicism, the elevation of the papacy to such a central place in RC teaching that the whole thing would fall apart without it.    

Mor has quite succinctly summarized the Orthodox position as expressed at length by the Orthodox theologians of the North American Dialogue group. He does SVS proud. ( SVS being whipping boy #2 here after the EP. )
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 12:29:40 PM
Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

Yeah right....

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."

that's not the part they used. They focused on the procession part as that is what they deemed to be a flaw in the creed that supported their doctrines. Plain history brother..
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 12:39:48 PM
The issue is whether the Father is the sole source/originator (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of the Spirit or not. Whether procedit in Latin can mean send is an entirely different issue.

The question is this: if we use the Greek word ekporeuesthai to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit, instead of the word procedit would it be heresy?
That is why I put forward the proposal in the post below:

Maybe the Latins should come up with a new way of translating the portion of the creed that concerns the Holy Spirit, and in the process truly clarify matters and help to bring about a real common understanding of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father alone.

Something like this:  "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui egreditur ex Patre, qui cum Patre et Filio adoratur et glorificatur . . ."
Perhaps if the Roman Church basically designated a Latin word (e.g., egreditur) that would exclusively be used to translate the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι real progress could be made on the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I admit that my own take on the issue is that Rome really does not want to clarify the issue if the clarification involves either relativizing or worse repudiating (i.e., from the Roman Catholic perspective) what was put forward at Lyons II and Florence.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 12:48:38 PM
Because the Ariana In the west used this very creed that defeated the Ariana in the east to prove how the son is not divine due to the procession of the spirit from the father.

Yeah right....

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father."

that's not the part they used. They focused on the procession part as that is what they deemed to be a flaw in the creed that supported their doctrines. Plain history brother..
plain heresy, prodigal.

"They deemed a flaw."  LOL.  Yes, heretics always think they could do better than the Church in Ecumenical Council.

As for the history, where is it?  Where is it recorded that the filioque was put in to slay (the already dead) Arians, and that it succeeded in doing so?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 12:49:30 PM
Perhaps if the Roman Church basically designated a Latin word (e.g., egreditur) that would exclusively be used to translate the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι real progress could be made on the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I admit that my own take on the issue is that Rome really does not want to clarify the issue if the clarification involves either relativizing or worse repudiating (i.e., from the Roman Catholic perspective) what was put forward at Lyons II and Florence.

Once, I read a RC online claim that Filioque should be kept in the Creed because, were the Pope to take it out, all the various chant and polyphonic settings of the Creed would be rendered useless.  :)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 12:50:38 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 12:51:46 PM

I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 :o :o ???

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.

Well, at least in the US, parish RCIA classes are notorious for being hit or miss, mostly miss.  On that, I would agree with Stanley.  But I think it's disingenuous for him to focus on the RCIA anecdote and ignore Dzheremi's reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 246 says exactly what Dzheremi claims.  If the CCC is not a/the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology, then really, what is?  

Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

In another post, I spoke of how RC apologists will give different answers to questions such as Filioque depending on who's asking, and they have definitive sources for contradictory answers.  If you call them on it, they'll insist they're right, that we don't understand, etc., but those aren't the reasons.  It's because they've placed so much dogmatic faith in an office and the man holding it that their belief system would crumble if the papacy were discredited.  The papacy is a sacred cow, so you can never question it.  That's why rebellion against papal authority is the only real heresy in Roman Catholicism.  The current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was widely criticised upon his appointment for his views against the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; nevertheless, he's the top dogmatic theologian in their Church.  But the SSPX is "canonically irregular", "do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church", etc., etc., because their founder ordained bishops without a papal mandate (that there was only one ordaining bishop never factors in as a problem) and he didn't approve of what he felt were liberal excesses in the post-Vatican II Church, a papally driven and endorsed institution.  

This is a real problem for Roman Catholicism, the elevation of the papacy to such a central place in RC teaching that the whole thing would fall apart without it.    
and fall down with it.

Excellent summary of the problem of Vatican theology and the apologetics for it.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 12:52:45 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
the Spirit is not created by "motion."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 12:53:40 PM
But I can't keep up with this thread. Too many replies to argue against. Its waaaaaay too overwhelming.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 12:54:22 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
But since the Greek word used in the creed concerns origin and not merely generic motion, it follows that the Latin translation has failed to accurately convey the meaning of the original Greek text. The Latins need to translate the Greek text of the creed in a way that actually conveys the meaning intended by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople. It is unwise to create a new doctrine on a poor Latin translation of a Greek word.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 12:54:57 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
the Spirit is not created by "motion."
Straw man
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 12:58:19 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?    

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
But since the Greek word used in the creed concerns origin and not merely generic motion, it follows that the Latin translation has failed to accurately convey the meaning of the original Greek text. The Latins need to translate the Greek text of the creed in a way that actually conveys the meaning intended by the Fathers of the Council of Constantinople. It is unwise to create a new doctrine on a poor Latin translation of a Greek word.

Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:01:19 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

Quote
Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.

You don't get it.  

If procedit concerns motion and not origin, how is it a translation of ἐκπορευόμενον, which does concern origin?  Either it is

a) a bad translation (which is itself problematic, and there are other examples in Western tradition of bad translations causing havoc), or

b) the Latins decided that they didn't want to discuss the origin of the Holy Spirit when professing the Creed, and so they decided to change the topic to "motion", redefining terms and meanings as they pleased.  You can't do that unilaterally, you can't agree to use certain words and then redefine them later because you feel like it might be nice or useful.    
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:03:02 PM

I personally would not take what is said in an RCIA class as being the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology.


 :o :o ???

If a formal and official catechism doesn't properly teach what your church teaches, then it is utterly worthless.

Well, at least in the US, parish RCIA classes are notorious for being hit or miss, mostly miss.  On that, I would agree with Stanley.  But I think it's disingenuous for him to focus on the RCIA anecdote and ignore Dzheremi's reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: paragraph 246 says exactly what Dzheremi claims.  If the CCC is not a/the definitive word on Roman Catholic theology, then really, what is?  

Many of us would love to know, because this is an important point.  RC apologists point to the lack of a "Pope" figure in Orthodoxy and claim that we have no definitive teaching authority, that different bishops/synods can disagree with each other, etc.  But despite having a Pope, and one enjoying a claim to infallibility at that, where is the definitive teaching?  CCC can be disregarded, RCIA is not dependable (which is funny, since that's how most converts enter the Church...what are they being taught?), bishops and national bishops' conferences often disagree with the Pope and with each other, and even Popes don't seem to maintain any continuity other than a historical succession.

In another post, I spoke of how RC apologists will give different answers to questions such as Filioque depending on who's asking, and they have definitive sources for contradictory answers.  If you call them on it, they'll insist they're right, that we don't understand, etc., but those aren't the reasons.  It's because they've placed so much dogmatic faith in an office and the man holding it that their belief system would crumble if the papacy were discredited.  The papacy is a sacred cow, so you can never question it.  That's why rebellion against papal authority is the only real heresy in Roman Catholicism.  The current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was widely criticised upon his appointment for his views against the perpetual virginity of Our Lady; nevertheless, he's the top dogmatic theologian in their Church.  But the SSPX is "canonically irregular", "do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church", etc., etc., because their founder ordained bishops without a papal mandate (that there was only one ordaining bishop never factors in as a problem) and he didn't approve of what he felt were liberal excesses in the post-Vatican II Church, a papally driven and endorsed institution.  

This is a real problem for Roman Catholicism, the elevation of the papacy to such a central place in RC teaching that the whole thing would fall apart without it.    
and fall down with it.

Excellent summary of the problem of Vatican theology and the apologetics for it.

Gods church will never fall as he promised. Your evaluation is thus heretical
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:04:25 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

Quote
Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.

You don't get it.  

If procedit concerns motion and not origin, how is it a translation of ἐκπορευόμενον, which does concern origin?  Either it is

a) a bad translation (which is itself problematic, and there are other examples in Western tradition of bad translations causing havoc), or

b) the Latins decided that they didn't want to discuss the origin of the Holy Spirit when professing the Creed, and so they decided to change the topic to "motion", redefining terms and meanings as they pleased.  You can't do that unilaterally, you can't agree to use certain words and then redefine them later because you feel like it might be nice or useful.    
read up
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 01:07:33 PM
Perhaps if the Roman Church basically designated a Latin word (e.g., egreditur) that would exclusively be used to translate the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι real progress could be made on the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I admit that my own take on the issue is that Rome really does not want to clarify the issue if the clarification involves either relativizing or worse repudiating (i.e., from the Roman Catholic perspective) what was put forward at Lyons II and Florence.

Once, I read a RC online claim that Filioque should be kept in the Creed because, were the Pope to take it out, all the various chant and polyphonic settings of the Creed would be rendered useless.  :)
I have heard that too, and I couldn't stop laughing.

As far as the main issue under consideration in this thread is concerned, I still think that coming up with a way to convey in Latin the difference between ἐκπόρευσις and προϊέναι is key to solving the present impasse, and this is true even if a Latin word must be artificially given a unique meaning or if the original Greek term must be simply transliterated into the Latin text. Only if the Latins can translate the original Greek in a way that fully conveys the sense of origination connected with the Greek term ἐκπόρευσις can real progress be made on this thorny issue. In addition to coming up with a specific Latin word to translate ἐκπόρευσις in the creed, the Latins will have to consistently use the older term processio to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, while simultaneously divorcing that term (i.e., processio) from any causal significance. And finally, the Latins will have to remove the term filioque from the creed because by their own admission the original intention of the authors of the creed was not to speak about motion in general, but was to refer to the origin of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, which the Son does not participate in because the Father alone is cause within the godhead.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:11:56 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 01:13:57 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:14:09 PM
Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.

I could believe that it is semantics and not a substantive theological difference if the RCC could demonstrate that despite using a "less precise than Greek" formulation, they maintained an Orthodox understanding.  

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  

But it seems as if you're arguing that they took a Greek word concerned with "origin" and translated it with a Latin word concerned with "motion".  That's not just semantics at that point, that's a fundamental theological misunderstanding.  And that's without factoring Filioque into the equation.  
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:17:40 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 01:18:04 PM
In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  
They cannot prove that because there clearly are other Latin words that could be used to translate the term ἐκπορευόμενον, e.g., the one I used in my earlier post "egreditur."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:18:27 PM
read up

You know, if you don't have the time or the interest in debating the matter, just say

But I can't keep up with this thread. Too many replies to argue against. Its waaaaaay too overwhelming.

and leave it at that.  

But it's insulting to respond to people's comments and questions directed toward you with "Read up", as if everyone who disagrees with you obviously hasn't read anything about the subject.    
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:19:00 PM
Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.

I could believe that it is semantics and not a substantive theological difference if the RCC could demonstrate that despite using a "less precise than Greek" formulation, they maintained an Orthodox understanding.  

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  

But it seems as if you're arguing that they took a Greek word concerned with "origin" and translated it with a Latin word concerned with "motion".  That's not just semantics at that point, that's a fundamental theological misunderstanding.  And that's without factoring Filioque into the equation.  

The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
read up

You know, if you don't have the time or the interest in debating the matter, just say

But I can't keep up with this thread. Too many replies to argue against. Its waaaaaay too overwhelming.

and leave it at that.  

But it's insulting to respond to people's comments and questions directed toward you with "Read up", as if everyone who disagrees with you obviously hasn't read anything about the subject.    

LOL. I actually meant "read up" as in literally scroll up the page to the post before yours and read what I said about how Latin only has procedit.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 01:21:52 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 01:24:46 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

Procedit accommodates filioque because it concerns motion, not origin.
the Spirit is not created by "motion."
Straw man
No, Divine Spirit.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 17, 2013, 01:26:07 PM
Look!  Here we are, 1,000 years later still arguing about the Filioque.  Tis good to know some things never change...  :D
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 01:30:10 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:30:31 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:30:38 PM
I'm stunned that John 15.26 is really considered to be so insufficient by Roman Catholicism when addressing this issue.  The very Son from whom the Spirit is supposed to proceed says the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and that's not good enough?  They can take him at face value re: Matthew 26.26-28, but not here?   

Oh gosh like I said again... Other passages affirm it as St Augustine pointed out. But ignore western theology and saints abs the Latin language and pronounce the Greek only.

You claim that other passages affirm Filioque's orthodoxy, but you haven't demonstrated that conclusively, you've merely asserted it.  Meanwhile, we have a quote from Christ himself directly relevant to the issue.  If Western theology and saints and the Latin language have no need for Christ, just say so.  But don't claim Christ and ignore his very pertinent statement.  

Augustine

"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

Of course, we will have to dig up the reference for ourselves if we want to know the full version of "just as the Father and the Son are one God DOT DOT DOT relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle".  Until then, we can just take your word for it.  

If the common divinity of the Father and the Son requires that both persons are the principle of the Spirit, and if the Spirit shares that very same divinity, what does that require of the Spirit?  Does the Son "proceed" in some way from the Spirit?  Does the Father derive "fatherhood" or some other quality from the Spirit and the Son?  Does the Spirit proceed from himself?  

Or else, maybe the Spirit's divinity is not the same as that of the Father and the Son?  Or maybe the Spirit is not divine at all?    

Quote
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).

"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

As Apotheoun said, it seems economy and theology are being confused here.  
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 01:30:51 PM
Look!  Here we are, 1,000 years later still arguing about the Filioque.  Tis good to know some things never change...  :D
What is really funny is that the filioque dispute was caused by a poor Latin translation of the word ἐκπορευόμενον, and that the whole Latin doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle is an attempt to legitimize that poor translation.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 01:31:47 PM
Latin has only one word which is procedit. The other that connotes origin is used in reference to the son. Can't use it to apply to the Holy Spirit as that would mean the holy spirit is begotten.

Secondly the creed was translated correctly. The original meaning is kept in tact yet the meaning of the filioque touches on what the word procedit conveys. Hence its perfectly orthodox. But somehow the "orthodox" will always find contention.

Again kalistos ware summaries' it is best in saying the filioque is an issue of semantics, not theology.

I could believe that it is semantics and not a substantive theological difference if the RCC could demonstrate that despite using a "less precise than Greek" formulation, they maintained an Orthodox understanding.  

In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  

But it seems as if you're arguing that they took a Greek word concerned with "origin" and translated it with a Latin word concerned with "motion".  That's not just semantics at that point, that's a fundamental theological misunderstanding.  And that's without factoring Filioque into the equation.  

The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.
my, the definition of "clarification" in the Vatican's dictionary keeps changing!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 01:33:24 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God
The Son is God because He is generated by the Father, i.e., God has begotten God. The Spirit's progression (προϊέναι) from the Father through the Son does not add anything ontologically to the begetting of the Son.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:35:09 PM
The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.

So, to be clear, your argument is that the Greek text of the Creed concerns the origin of the Spirit, but when the text was translated into Latin, they deliberately chose a word that indicates motion and not origin, and Filioque is an expansion on this "new" focus and not on the "old"?  

It is still wrong, I just want to be clear on which erroneous position you are taking.  
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:35:50 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:37:18 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God
The Son is God because He is generated by the Father, i.e., God has begotten God. The Spirit's progression (προϊέναι) from the Father through the Son does not add anything ontologically to the begetting of the Son.

And in being begotten received all from the father except being the father including procession. This is why he is God. So yes its because he is begotten
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
The thing is the original meaning was never forgotten. The filioque is simply not an expansion on that meaning but on something else.

So, to be clear, your argument is that the Greek text of the Creed concerns the origin of the Spirit, but when the text was translated into Latin, they deliberately chose a word that indicates motion and not origin, and Filioque is an expansion on this "new" focus and not on the "old"?  

It is still wrong, I just want to be clear on which erroneous position you are taking.  

My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in attaining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:40:52 PM
God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

Can you do this again using "motion" and "origin" rather than "procession"?    
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 01:41:06 PM
LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.
If by the word procession you mean the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit from the Father, then you are in error, because the Father alone is cause within the godhead, and so He alone causes the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and He alone causes the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσις). But if you are only talking about general movement (i.e., progression / προϊέναι) then this is a common attribute of the Holy Trinity, and it does not have causal significance. That said, as far as causation within the godhead is concerned, that characteristic is unique to the person of the Father, and it cannot be shared with either the Son or the Holy Spirit, for as St. Gregory of Nazianzen said: "All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:45:56 PM
LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.
If by the word procession you mean the ἐκπόρευσις of the Spirit from the Father, then you are in error, because the Father alone is cause within the godhead, and so He alone causes the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and He alone causes the Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσις). But if you are only talking about general movement (i.e., progression / προϊέναι) then this is a common attribute of the Holy Trinity, and it does not have causal significance. That said, as far as causation within the godhead is concerned, that characteristic is unique to the person of the Father, and it cannot be shared with either the Son or the Holy Spirit, for as St. Gregory of Nazianzen said: "All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."

NO I NEVER MEANT ἐκπόρευσις AND THAT IS WHY GREGORY IS RIGHT.

sorry for "shouting"
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:46:12 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:48:36 PM
God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in personage all that the fathe has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the fatbe is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is kot the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

Can you do this again using "motion" and "origin" rather than "procession"?    

Any particular reason why?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:50:07 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:50:46 PM
Any particular reason why?

Why?  Because you're claiming a semantic range of meaning for procedit, and yet that's the only term you used.  The confusion over who's doing what is at the root of the issue, so if you clarify it with your own chosen terms, it might be more comprehensible.  
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 01:52:25 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology.

A Creed is useless if it is "not clear".  You've made our case for us.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 17, 2013, 01:54:18 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 01:57:52 PM
Any particular reason why?

Why?  Because you're claiming a semantic range of meaning for procedit, and yet that's the only term you used.  The confusion over who's doing what is at the root of the issue, so if you clarify it with your own chosen terms, it might be more comprehensible.  

It was pretty basic but I will issue one more clarification
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:00:50 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology.

A Creed is useless if it is "not clear".  You've made our case for us.  Thanks.

it is clear once one decided to learn what is being taught in the creed. A lot of things in the creed need explanation and aren't as straight forward as you make it out to be. Unless the whole creed is rendered useless by your logic
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 02:10:14 PM
it is clear once one decided to learn what is being taught in the creed. A lot of things in the creed need explanation and aren't as straight forward as you make it out to be. Unless the whole creed is rendered useless by your logic

I had to catechise a Hindu once, and she thought "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic CHURCH" referred to the parish she was joining, with its heated parish council politics that spilled over into coffee hour; she told me in no uncertain terms that if she was required to believe in those hotheads in order to be Christian, she was going to stay Hindu.  :)  

Of course the Creed requires explanation and isn't as straightforward on its face.  But once you define the terms as the Church defined them when formulating the Creed, there's really only one way to take it.  That's the whole point of having a Creed: it defines what is believed and leaves no wiggle room.  

Your problem is that you want to allow for definitions other than those the entire Church agreed upon.  Everyone--pre-Filioque Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, even the Assyrians--agrees on the meaning and implications of ἐκπορευόμενον.  It's only the post-Filioque West which disagrees.          
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 17, 2013, 02:12:29 PM
I dunno, it always seemed pretty clear to me...

I don't know all the latin and greek that you guys are going on about, but the filioque just does not make any sense to me at all. Just from a simple logic standpoint, the creed makes much more sense without it in there.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:13:19 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.

The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:16:00 PM
I dunno, it always seemed pretty clear to me...

I don't know all the latin and greek that you guys are going on about, but the filioque just does not make any sense to me at all. Just from a simple logic standpoint, the creed makes much more sense without it in there.

To me it is the other way around. To me it has always been completely illogical to not have the spirit proceed form the son also
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:16:39 PM
In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  
They cannot prove that because there clearly are other Latin words that could be used to translate the term ἐκπορευόμενον, e.g., the one I used in my earlier post "egreditur."

One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:18:47 PM
it is clear once one decided to learn what is being taught in the creed. A lot of things in the creed need explanation and aren't as straight forward as you make it out to be. Unless the whole creed is rendered useless by your logic

I had to catechise a Hindu once, and she thought "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic CHURCH" referred to the parish she was joining, with its heated parish council politics that spilled over into coffee hour; she told me in no uncertain terms that if she was required to believe in those hotheads in order to be Christian, she was going to stay Hindu.  :)  

Of course the Creed requires explanation and isn't as straightforward on its face.  But once you define the terms as the Church defined them when formulating the Creed, there's really only one way to take it.  That's the whole point of having a Creed: it defines what is believed and leaves no wiggle room.  

Your problem is that you want to allow for definitions other than those the entire Church agreed upon.  Everyone--pre-Filioque Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, even the Assyrians--agrees on the meaning and implications of ἐκπορευόμενον.  It's only the post-Filioque West which disagrees.          

And our creed does just that. Its explains the faith. Rome went on to clarify another part of the church teachings. Rome redefined nothing
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 02:19:28 PM
One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you

One would think that, yes.  And yet, you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to have studied Latin well enough to propose that the language itself has other words that would render the meaning of the Greek much better.  So it goes back to the original Latins: did they not understand Greek, or did they simply not care?    
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 02:21:07 PM
And our creed does just that. Its explains the faith. Rome went on to clarify another part of the church teachings. Rome redefined nothing

...except the meaning of "procedit". 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 17, 2013, 02:23:51 PM
I dunno, it always seemed pretty clear to me...

I don't know all the latin and greek that you guys are going on about, but the filioque just does not make any sense to me at all. Just from a simple logic standpoint, the creed makes much more sense without it in there.

To me it is the other way around. To me it has always been completely illogical to not have the spirit proceed form the son also
Why? How is it illogical that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 17, 2013, 02:30:27 PM
The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:35:01 PM
One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you

One would think that, yes.  And yet, you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to have studied Latin well enough to propose that the language itself has other words that would render the meaning of the Greek much better.  So it goes back to the original Latins: did they not understand Greek, or did they simply not care?    

or were they correct
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:36:40 PM
And our creed does just that. Its explains the faith. Rome went on to clarify another part of the church teachings. Rome redefined nothing

...except the meaning of "procedit". 

procesdit was not redefined. It meant exactly what the Latins claim it meant.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 02:41:14 PM
One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you

One would think that, yes.  And yet, you don't have to be a Roman Catholic to have studied Latin well enough to propose that the language itself has other words that would render the meaning of the Greek much better.  So it goes back to the original Latins: did they not understand Greek, or did they simply not care?    

or were they correct

LOL.  If you want that option to be viable, you should demonstrate that the original Greek of the Creed was insufficient, and that the East is wrong to keep the older form, as Latin apologists have claimed from time to time throughout the centuries.

Otherwise, it's really a question of whether they misunderstood or did not care.  Either/or and both/and are equally possible.   
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 02:41:39 PM
And our creed does just that. Its explains the faith. Rome went on to clarify another part of the church teachings. Rome redefined nothing

...except the meaning of "procedit". 

procesdit was not redefined. It meant exactly what the Latins claim it meant.

Tautology. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 02:45:30 PM
The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.

ooooh some knew Latin and knew Latin theology yet kept communion with the latins

Most Greeks like Photius misunderstood the West,{3} knew no Latin,{4} and failed express the truly Catholic tradition, for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers if i remember correctly. urther even after the 7th century, communion was kept
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on September 17, 2013, 02:53:07 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all. 

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.

The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on September 17, 2013, 02:53:48 PM
The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.
for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers if i remember correctly.
I want to see a source for that.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 17, 2013, 03:01:40 PM
ooooh some knew Latin and knew Latin theology yet kept communion with the latins

Name one.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 03:05:47 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all. 

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.

The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.
He also said that the phrase was poorly worded, and should be changed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 03:07:21 PM
The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

Because the Greek Fathers didn't know Latin and when the filioque became known in the East - i.e. in the seventh century - the Greeks immediately protested it.

ooooh some knew Latin and knew Latin theology yet kept communion with the latins

Most Greeks like Photius misunderstood the West,{3} knew no Latin,{4} and failed express the truly Catholic tradition, for he did not include the Latins, St. John of Damascus, and ante-Nicene saints among the Church Fathers if i remember correctly. urther even after the 7th century, communion was kept
The Standard-the "truly Catholic tradition-was set in Greek, to which the Latin had to conform, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  
They cannot prove that because there clearly are other Latin words that could be used to translate the term ἐκπορευόμενον, e.g., the one I used in my earlier post "egreditur."

One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you
They do.
(http://www.patriarhia.ro/_layouts/images/2_patriarhul.jpg)
http://www.patriarhia.ro/
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 03:16:49 PM
it is clear once one decided to learn what is being taught in the creed. A lot of things in the creed need explanation and aren't as straight forward as you make it out to be. Unless the whole creed is rendered useless by your logic

I had to catechise a Hindu once, and she thought "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic CHURCH" referred to the parish she was joining, with its heated parish council politics that spilled over into coffee hour; she told me in no uncertain terms that if she was required to believe in those hotheads in order to be Christian, she was going to stay Hindu.  :)  

Of course the Creed requires explanation and isn't as straightforward on its face.  But once you define the terms as the Church defined them when formulating the Creed, there's really only one way to take it.  That's the whole point of having a Creed: it defines what is believed and leaves no wiggle room.  

Your problem is that you want to allow for definitions other than those the entire Church agreed upon.  Everyone--pre-Filioque Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, even the Assyrians--agrees on the meaning and implications of ἐκπορευόμενον.  It's only the post-Filioque West which disagrees.          

And our creed does just that. Its explains the faith. Rome went on to clarify another part of the church teachings. Rome redefined nothing
No, it just accepted Toledo's corruption, after fighting it for centuries.

Is is still a clarification when it confuses everything?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.

The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.

The Latins have always taught it. Numerous writings attest to it. In fact Pope Saint Leo I, defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ as the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, in a letter to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga in 447:

"Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both."

Latin:

primo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 04:22:54 PM
In other words, if procedit is the only Latin word available to translate ἐκπορευόμενον, the Latins should demonstrate that, even if procedit has a range of meaning incorporating motion as well as origin, they always understood it to mean origin and origin from the Father.  
They cannot prove that because there clearly are other Latin words that could be used to translate the term ἐκπορευόμενον, e.g., the one I used in my earlier post "egreditur."

One would think the Latins know their OWN language better than you
They do.
(http://www.patriarhia.ro/_layouts/images/2_patriarhul.jpg)
http://www.patriarhia.ro/

LOL
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 17, 2013, 04:26:11 PM
Suffice it to say:  The Latins want it in the Creed, and the Orthodox consider it heresy...... ♫ ♪  Lets call the whole thing off ♫  ♪

We aint budging, and Im sure the RCC aren't.  

Lets move on  !
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 17, 2013, 04:27:14 PM
Suffice it to say:  The Latins want it in the Creed, and the Orthodox consider it heresy...... ♫ ♪  Lets call the whole thing off ♫  ♪

We aint budging, and Im sure the RCC aren't.  

Lets move on  !
The wisest, most insightful, and important post in the thread. :)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 04:50:26 PM
My argument. Is that the Latin text focuses on both meanings. Filioque is focused on motion.

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That is not at all clear in the Latin Creed without adding all those parenthetical phrases you added.  I mean, really, "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" is very simple Latin.  So it really depends on what "procedit" means.  You can't claim that Filioque is concerned with motion and ex Patre is focused on origin when claiming "procedit" encompasses both origin and motion.  For that matter, you could also claim that "qui ex Patre Filioque procedit" concerns a) motion from the Father and origin from the Son, or b) motion from the Father and motion from the Son without reference to origin at all.  

Its not clear but it is what is meant. Keeping both meanings alive in the text. This is the truth of the roman theology. Perfectly orthodox and like I said Bishop Kalistos Ware noticed this too . Its all just semantics

But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.

The Latin Fathers unanimously teach Filioque in the sense of a hypostatic procession; their teaching is not, as others have said, restricted to an energetic procession. How could the Greek Fathers have held an understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit antithetical to the unanimous understanding of the Latin Fathers who openly professed Filioque, with whom they were in communion for centuries, and whom the Eastern Orthodox venerate as saints?

No, they don't, as St. Maximus proved when he wrote that the Latins of his time meant the Filioque in a non-causal sense.

The Latins have always taught it. Numerous writings attest to it. In fact Pope Saint Leo I, defined the true doctrine of the two natures of Christ as the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son
just when you thought the filioque couldn't muddle things further....
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 05:00:49 PM
Suffice it to say:  The Latins want it in the Creed, and the Orthodox consider it heresy...... ♫ ♪  Lets call the whole thing off ♫  ♪

We aint budging, and Im sure the RCC aren't.  

Lets move on  !
The wisest, most insightful, and important post in the thread. :)

Quote
I Kings 3 (RSV)

16 Then two harlots came to the king, and stood before him. 17 The one woman said, “Oh, my lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house; and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. 18 Then on the third day after I was delivered, this woman also gave birth; and we were alone; there was no one else with us in the house, only we two were in the house. 19 And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on it. 20 And she arose at midnight, and took my son from beside me, while your maidservant slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead son in my bosom. 21 When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, it was dead; but when I looked at it closely in the morning, behold, it was not the child that I had borne.” 22 But the other woman said, “No, the living child is mine, and the dead child is yours.” The first said, “No, the dead child is yours, and the living child is mine.” Thus they spoke before the king.

23 Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living one.’” 24 And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.” 26 Then the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because her heart yearned for her son, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means slay it.” But the other said, “It shall be neither mine nor yours; divide it.” 27 Then the king answered and said, “Give the living child to the first woman, and by no means slay it; she is its mother.” 28 And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered; and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him, to render justice.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 17, 2013, 05:07:35 PM
But the Holy Spirit does not proceed hypostatically from the Son.
I agree.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 17, 2013, 06:46:00 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God

Very bad argument, if it is a necesity for Christ to be God, then the Holy Spirit who does not have it is not God. Great logic!  :D
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 17, 2013, 06:49:36 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 17, 2013, 07:43:49 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.
I don't think you are an Arian. Just mistaken.  ;D
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 17, 2013, 07:48:29 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.
I don't think you are an Arian. Just mistaken.  ;D

Then also is Wandile  :)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 08:16:20 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God

Very bad argument, if it is a necesity for Christ to be God, then the Holy Spirit who does not have it is not God. Great logic!  :D

Shows your lack,of logic. Personhood in the trinity is a factor, since the Holy Spirit is who he is, he does not proceed from himself... Just as the fathers and son's Personhood have certain things that apply to them too.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 17, 2013, 08:23:08 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 17, 2013, 09:25:53 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
The fact that Son economically sends the Spirit is not the same thing as the Spirit receiving His origin from the Father by ἐκπόρευσις. What you are arguing for here is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox (and Oriental Orthodox) posters are accusing you of doing, i.e., confusing the Spirit's origination from the Father alone as the font of divinity, with His progression (i.e., His προϊέναι) or "general movement" from the Father through the Son.

Yet nowhere was it states that he found his being in the son but procession (procedit) must happen for Christ to be God

Very bad argument, if it is a necesity for Christ to be God, then the Holy Spirit who does not have it is not God. Great logic!  :D

Shows your lack,of logic. Personhood in the trinity is a factor, since the Holy Spirit is who he is, he does not proceed from himself... Just as the fathers and son's Personhood have certain things that apply to them too.

We really see how bad it is when philosophy replaces revelation. You say if HS does not proceed from the Son, then the Son is not God. Well by that logic if the HS does not have anything proceeding from him, he is not God either. That's all.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Napoletani on September 17, 2013, 09:26:39 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

No it does not, but since we deny your all procedit thing, you must say that we do, if not in intention, de facto. You must keep in line with your argumentation.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: lovesupreme on September 17, 2013, 09:46:19 PM
And I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and giver of life,
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
that is, if by "proceeds," one means...
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 17, 2013, 09:58:37 PM
Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

You keep bouncing around the issue without actually taking a stand. 

You say that Orthodox theology, related as it is to the Greek term, is correct, and that Latin theology, related as it is to the Latin term, is also correct. 

But you also assert that the Greek term is interested in origins, while the Latin term is interested in motion. 

But when asked how the Latins were able to (mis)translate the Greek term so that it no longer means what the Greek means because it is no longer talking about the same concept, you want to say that the Latin term indicates both origin and motion. 

But when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

The common thread in all of this is "The Pope is never wrong".   
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 17, 2013, 10:19:08 PM
This thread makes my head spin. I am reminded of a long ago autumn when as a college sophomore I thought I knew it all after five weeks of Logic 201. Boy was I wrong......Unfortunately, others apparently didn't reach a similar conclusion about their own skill set.

Kipling said it best, "East is east, west is west and never the twain shall meet."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 17, 2013, 10:51:54 PM
This thread makes my head spin. I am reminded of a long ago autumn when as a college sophomore I thought I knew it all after five weeks of Logic 201. Boy was I wrong......Unfortunately, others apparently didn't reach a similar conclusion about their own skill set.

Kipling said it best, "East is east, west is west and never the twain shall meet."
(http://www.crosswordfiend.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/kippled.jpg)
Kipling was wrong.
(http://orthodoxhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Trinity-Orthodox-Church-remodeled.-1890s..jpg)

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheMathematician on September 17, 2013, 11:36:34 PM
Let's solve this problem, and only recite the Creed in the Greek that it was written in, to avoid these types of confusion. For, even the Pope Emetrius Benedict XVI refused to say and the Son in Greek, because he knew it was heretical.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 17, 2013, 11:39:51 PM
The Orthodox Church does fine reciting it in English and many other languages that are not Greek. I think encouraging the Latins to come to the truth is the better option in the long run, even if it takes forever.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 18, 2013, 05:07:04 AM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 18, 2013, 11:04:38 AM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
Or definitely not. :)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 18, 2013, 12:01:13 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
Or definitely not. :)

Indeed
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 18, 2013, 12:03:46 PM
The Orthodox Church does fine reciting it in English and many other languages that are not Greek. I think encouraging the Latins to come to the truth is the better option in the long run, even if it takes forever.

This goes without saying but we have the truth already.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 18, 2013, 12:19:30 PM
Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

You keep bouncing around the issue without actually taking a stand.  

No I took a stand. You just refuse to recognize it. Can't help you with that.

Quote
You say that Orthodox theology, related as it is to the Greek term, is correct, and that Latin theology, related as it is to the Latin term, is also correct.
Yes

Quote
But you also assert that the Greek term is interested in origins, while the Latin term is interested in motion.  
Not just assert, but in fact IS THE CASE.

Quote
But when asked how the Latins were able to (mis)translate the Greek term so that it no longer means what the Greek means because it is no longer talking about the same concept, you want to say that the Latin term indicates both origin and motion.  

It doesn't and I never said it did. Read further down.

Quote
when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

No the  Latin term means what the Latin term means, "to go forth". However I was explaining Latin filioque in the creed keeping in mind the original Greek meaning coupled with the Latin meaning due to the use of procedit. And BOOM!... You have a logical explanation.

If you neglect the original Greek meaning then STILL the filioque is orthodox as all the creed is saying (in the strictly Latin sense) is ... " We believe in the Holy Spirit... Who goes forth (proceeds/ procedit) from the father and the son..."

But of course we don't neglect the original Greek meaning and that's why I explained the creed that way to you

Quote
The common thread in all of this is "The Pope is never wrong".  

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  8)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 18, 2013, 12:21:43 PM

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  8)

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son. :)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 18, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
What is certain is that the Greek text of the decree of Florence does not conform to St. Maximus' letter to Marinus, because the decree affirms that the Son is the cause of the subsistent being (ύπαρχτιχόν είναι) of the Holy Spirit "just like the Father," while St. Maximus says that the Father is the only cause of the Son by generation (γέννησιν), and that He alone (i.e., the Father) is the cause of the Holy Spirit by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν). I still think that the only way to even begin to move beyond the historic impasse on this issue is for the West to distinguish between ἐκπόρευσις and προϊέναι when translating texts from the Greek into Latin.

Here again is my proposal:

As far as the main issue under consideration in this thread is concerned, I still think that coming up with a way to convey in Latin the difference between ἐκπόρευσις and προϊέναι is key to solving the present impasse, and this is true even if a Latin word must be artificially given a unique meaning or if the original Greek term must be simply transliterated into the Latin text. Only if the Latins can translate the original Greek in a way that fully conveys the sense of origination connected with the Greek term ἐκπόρευσις can real progress be made on this thorny issue. In addition to coming up with a specific Latin word to translate ἐκπόρευσις in the creed, the Latins will have to consistently use the older term processio to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, while simultaneously divorcing that term (i.e., processio) from any causal significance. And finally, the Latins will have to remove the term filioque from the creed because by their own admission the original intention of the authors of the creed was not to speak about motion in general, but was to refer to the origin of the Holy Spirit from God the Father, which the Son does not participate in because the Father alone is cause within the godhead.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 18, 2013, 12:49:17 PM
Quote
when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

No the  Latin term means what the Latin term means, "to go forth". However I was explaining Latin filioque in the creed keeping in mind the original Greek meaning coupled with the Latin meaning due to the use of procedit. And BOOM!... You have a logical explanation.

Not really, you had an explanation riddled with parenthetical phrases intended to preserve an orthodox understanding of the Holy Spirit's origin from the Father and his economic sending forth from the Son when the same could have been done by omitting Filioque in the first place. 

Quote
If you neglect the original Greek meaning then STILL the filioque is orthodox as all the creed is saying (in the strictly Latin sense) is ... " We believe in the Holy Spirit... Who goes forth (proceeds/ procedit) from the father and the son..."

If you eliminate from your Latin "procedit" the Greek sense of "origin", then all you've got left is "motion" or economy.  That's fine, but...

Quote
But of course we don't neglect the original Greek meaning and that's why I explained the creed that way to you

...you don't take this to its logical conclusion.  If you don't neglect--but rather acknowledge as valid--the "original Greek meaning", then you have to admit that the Greek term only allows for "origin" and not "motion".  Your answer to that is to say that the Latin term encompasses both meanings, and so you come up with this mouthful:

" We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the giver of life. Who proceeds from the father (Eternally in staining origin and in motion) and the son (eternally in motion but not origin). Who with the father and the son is worshiped and glorified..."

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.  Heck, apparently even in Dutch it's translated in a heterodox way even though that language supposedly has terms that would assure an orthodox interpretation (if Cyrillic, as a native speaker who is also conversant in Greek and Latin, is to be believed).  Is that because the Dutch RC bishops don't know their own faith?  Or is it because they understand Filioque--on its face and consistent with Latin teaching as opposed to Orthodox teaching--to be their faith?   
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 18, 2013, 01:06:01 PM
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Here St. Augustine has confused economy with theology, which is a pervasive problem throughout his writings (i.e., including his treatise on the Trinity).
here though, Augustine is right. Others have concluded the same about the passages as they can only mean one things. How can Christ be God is he has not he spirit if God proceeding as it should with one whom we call God? Unless we equate two Gods, one that is the Hoky Spirit and the Father and the other that is the Father and The Son
This is how your Scholasticism leads you astray.

The One Whom the Father declares His Only Begotten Son declares that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.  How you get two Gods-or rather, gods-from that (like the Arians, btw) only shows the heretical nature of the Scholastic endevour.

LOL. I'm gonna show this in as plain terms as possible.

God has a spirit that proceeds from him (procedit). Now in nature/being all that the father has was given to the son including procession. The only things the son has not got is being the father himself which entitles source. Now since the father is the source of the trinity, the spirit finds his being in the father and not the son for this is an attribute of being the father and the son is not the father.

Yet the son is God. Gods spirit proceeds from him (procedit). The son HAD to have this happen through the son or else he is not God, this is the crux of the matter.

False. If what you say is true, since we Orthodox deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that means in our theology, according to your argument, Christ is not God. Wich would make us kind of arians. And then it is not a semantic issue but a theological one, and your appeal to Kalistos Ware is irelevant.

Vatican logic is full of surprises. Aristotle is pleading innocent.

Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

But the definition of the Council of Florence is definitely heretical.
Or definitely not. :)

Oh you  :)

In either case, the issue is far more complicated than the age-old procedit-ekporeuomai word game
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 18, 2013, 01:08:07 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 18, 2013, 01:11:56 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 18, 2013, 01:16:50 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 18, 2013, 01:18:31 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.  

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Yes, but that is NOT what's going on here.  Again, you show me some other Latin EVIDENCE that procedit will assume different meanings with each object of the same preposition "ex" and I'll reconsider my objection (not to the filioque theologically, but to your linguistic contortions).  Until you can provide EVIDENCE in the Latin language that this has happened before, I will reject it.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 18, 2013, 01:19:08 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .
Seems like an awfully confusing way to write a Creed that is supposed to CLEAR UP confusion.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 18, 2013, 01:21:42 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .
Seems like an awfully confusing way to write a Creed that is supposed to CLEAR UP confusion.

What will be heard from RC pews this Sunday:

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life who proceeds from the Father and the Son based upon predication analogically and equivocally which I don't even pretend to understand even though it does refute the Orthodox who refuse to say the Creed the right way, who with the Father and the Son...
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 18, 2013, 01:22:56 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).   Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .
Seems like an awfully confusing way to write a Creed that is supposed to CLEAR UP confusion.
Yes, why not simply use a different Latin word for the two realities under review (i.e., the Spirit's procession of origin and His progression through the Son)?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 18, 2013, 01:25:53 PM
Anyone here familiar with the most annoying children's song ever: " The Song that Never Ends?"

"This is the song that never ends.
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because . . .

Repeat...

Repeat... Ad infinitum/Στο άπειρο"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_That_Never_Ends

(Attributed to Norman Martin, 1988.)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 18, 2013, 02:03:20 PM
Anyone here familiar with the most annoying children's song ever: " The Song that Never Ends?"

"This is the song that never ends.
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue singing it forever just because . . .

Repeat...

Repeat... Ad infinitum/Στο άπειρο"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Song_That_Never_Ends

(Attributed to Norman Martin, 1988.)
But it need not be a song that never ends if people are willing to affirm the need to translate the Greek words that refer to the Spirit's origin and His manifestation into Latin in such a way that the variety of meaning is maintained. So perhaps the Greek term προϊέναι, which refers to the movement of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, could be translated into Latin using the word "processio", while simultaneously removing any causal meaning that has been ascribed to that Latin term in the past. Next the Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον, which concerns the Holy Spirit's procession of origin from the Father alone, could be translated by using the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word), and that word could be given a causal significance like that of the Greek word it translates, and that would in effect turn the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word) into a technical theological term meant to exclusively refer to the Father's eternal causing of the Spirit's person.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 18, 2013, 02:16:36 PM
If both sides accepted a solution along the lines I have proposed, it would be possible for the East and the West to confess together - with St. John Damascene - that we speak of ". . . the Holy Spirit of God the Father, as proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) from Him, who is also said to be of the Son, as through Him manifest (φανεροὑμενον) and bestowed on the creation, but not as taking His existence (ὕπαρξιν) from the Son."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 18, 2013, 02:57:48 PM
The Orthodox Church does fine reciting it in English and many other languages that are not Greek. I think encouraging the Latins to come to the truth is the better option in the long run, even if it takes forever.

This goes without saying but we have the truth already.

This topic has become a pissing contest..... Lets move on....nothings going to be settled here.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 18, 2013, 03:27:40 PM
...could be translated by using the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word), and that word could be given a causal significance like that of the Greek word it translates, and that would in effect turn the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word) into a technical theological term meant to exclusively refer to the Father's eternal causing of the Spirit's person.

Egreditur has the same number of syllables as Filioque.  Congratulations, you have saved the Western liturgical musical patrimony!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: John of Patmos on September 18, 2013, 04:00:00 PM
A better alternative:

http://dropthefilioque.org/
+1  I don't think the Filioque should have been added
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 18, 2013, 04:54:03 PM
...could be translated by using the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word), and that word could be given a causal significance like that of the Greek word it translates, and that would in effect turn the Latin word "egreditur" (or some other Latin word) into a technical theological term meant to exclusively refer to the Father's eternal causing of the Spirit's person.

Egreditur has the same number of syllables as Filioque.  Congratulations, you have saved the Western liturgical musical patrimony!

but the accentuation is wrong.  e-GRED-i-tur vs. FIL-i-o-que
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 18, 2013, 05:14:34 PM
but the accentuation is wrong.  e-GRED-i-tur vs. FIL-i-o-que

Sure, but shouldn't it be easier to adjust the music around this than around a longer/shorter word?  I'm not a musician by any means, so I don't know, I just figured it might work this way. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 18, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
Nope because this is all in the frame of procedit not the Greek term. A lot of the time this is a misunderstanding. You guys in your theology with relation to the Greek term are correct. Latin theology in relation to procedit is correct to. You theology does not deny the sons divinity.

You keep bouncing around the issue without actually taking a stand.  

No I took a stand. You just refuse to recognize it. Can't help you with that.

Quote
You say that Orthodox theology, related as it is to the Greek term, is correct, and that Latin theology, related as it is to the Latin term, is also correct.
Yes

Quote
But you also assert that the Greek term is interested in origins, while the Latin term is interested in motion.  
Not just assert, but in fact IS THE CASE.

Quote
But when asked how the Latins were able to (mis)translate the Greek term so that it no longer means what the Greek means because it is no longer talking about the same concept, you want to say that the Latin term indicates both origin and motion.  

It doesn't and I never said it did. Read further down.

Quote
when asked how that doesn't make the Son an "origin" of the Spirit, you say it doesn't--that it means origin when it refers to the Father and motion when it refers to the Son, even if that's not at all the plain sense of the Latin.

No the  Latin term means what the Latin term means, "to go forth". However I was explaining Latin filioque in the creed keeping in mind the original Greek meaning coupled with the Latin meaning due to the use of procedit. And BOOM!... You have a logical explanation
no, you have a convoluted mess.

If you neglect the original Greek meaning then STILL the filioque is orthodox as all the creed is saying (in the strictly Latin sense) is ... " We believe in the Holy Spirit... Who goes forth (proceeds/ procedit) from the father and the son..."

But of course we don't neglect the original Greek meaning and that's why I explained the creed that way to you
We'll stick to the Faith explained in the Creed by the Fathers in the original Greek.

An explanation of the explanation of the explanation etc. just gets you deeper into heresy.  As the Vatican finds itself now after centuries of "explanation."

Quote
The common thread in all of this is "The Pope is never wrong".  

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  8)
A different spirit inspired Pastor Aeternus.  Not the one proceeding from the Son, but the one trying to tempt Him in the wilderness. Unlike the Lord, your supreme pontiff fell for it.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 18, 2013, 06:13:55 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.
Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: orthonorm on September 18, 2013, 06:25:01 PM
Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: orthonorm on September 18, 2013, 06:27:04 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.
Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

Speaking as a languagist, it happens all the time in every language. You really don't have to argue with these people.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 18, 2013, 07:52:58 PM
I don't think you are an Arian. Just mistaken.  ;D

This is why I found #8 so outrageous. If anyone still remember the article from the beginning of the discussion that is. :)

(Incidentally, I've almost completely given up on reading this thread. I'm still reading a small fraction of the posts, e.g. the above. :))
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 18, 2013, 08:05:28 PM
Kipling said it best, "East is east, west is west and never the twain shall meet."

Kipling was wrong.

In Christ there is no East or West
-John Oxenham
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Father H on September 18, 2013, 09:05:13 PM

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  8)

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son. :)

Then, as St. Gregory Palamas points out, if such is the case, the Holy Spirit is God the Father's cosmic Grandchild.  Either that or, we can follow St. Gregory the Theologian (4th c.), who points out that the Spirit is likened to Eve who was not born of Adam, but proceeded from him. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 18, 2013, 09:06:24 PM
Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 18, 2013, 09:26:05 PM
Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.

No offense, just a clarification, so are a couple of my kids (Ph.D' s)  but they couldn't offer an academically vetted  opinion here as one is a scientist, the other a poet. You need to be a bit more specific if you're throwing degrees around for credibility sake.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 18, 2013, 09:51:39 PM
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 18, 2013, 10:00:03 PM
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

For me, Orthonorm's statements have a slight tendency to go in one ear and out the other, so to speak. (Or should I say eye?)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 18, 2013, 10:04:35 PM
but the accentuation is wrong.  e-GRED-i-tur vs. FIL-i-o-que

 :o

Can you even pronounce that? Horribile auditu!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 18, 2013, 10:12:42 PM
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

I suspected as much and having your CV out and in the open in this discussion lends weight to your pov. Most of us are without any skill set to argue, let alone understand the nuances and/or clear meaning of ancient languages. Since that has become a focus of this thread, I'm glad to know that an Orthodox voice with the academic background to offer a cogent response in defense of the Orthodox understanding has weighed in, in defense of our Faith. Thanks.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 18, 2013, 10:54:46 PM
This is why I found #8 so outrageous. If anyone still remember the article from the beginning of the discussion that is. :)

(Incidentally, I've almost completely given up on reading this thread. I'm still reading a small fraction of the posts, e.g. the above. :))

Thanks for the update!   :police:
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Asteriktos on September 18, 2013, 11:08:39 PM
Not sure what's so lowly about being a high school teacher. Of the many dozens (hundreds?) of books I've read by modern Orthodox authors, possibly the one I found most helpful was by a high school teacher (Panayiotis Nellas). But pardon me for taking things even further astray  :angel:
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 18, 2013, 11:28:56 PM
Wandile, happy almost-belated 20th birthday!  Filioque is still heretical, but I hope you had a good day anyway.  :P
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 18, 2013, 11:34:15 PM
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.
It clears matters up for me. I would have been happy to have you as a Latin teacher at the small Catholic high school where I worked as Vice Principal.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on September 19, 2013, 01:20:49 PM

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  8)

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son. :)

Then, as St. Gregory Palamas points out, if such is the case, the Holy Spirit is God the Father's cosmic Grandchild.  Either that or, we can follow St. Gregory the Theologian (4th c.), who points out that the Spirit is likened to Eve who was not born of Adam, but proceeded from him. 
That's silly. The Holy Spirit is neither begotten of the Father nor the Son. He proceeds from them.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 19, 2013, 01:30:02 PM
but the accentuation is wrong.  e-GRED-i-tur vs. FIL-i-o-que

 :o

Can you even pronounce that? Horribile auditu!

Wait till you have to pronounce Ennius' poetry.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 19, 2013, 01:33:40 PM
Wandile, happy almost-belated 20th birthday!  Filioque is still heretical, but I hope you had a good day anyway.  :P

LOL Thank you Mor,  ;D!! I really enjoyed it!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 19, 2013, 01:34:47 PM

When speaking from the chair on faith and morals, yeah, he's never wrong... Charism of the Holy Spirit baby  8)

The Holy Spirit who, btw, proceeds from the Father and the Son. :)

Then, as St. Gregory Palamas points out, if such is the case, the Holy Spirit is God the Father's cosmic Grandchild.  Either that or, we can follow St. Gregory the Theologian (4th c.), who points out that the Spirit is likened to Eve who was not born of Adam, but proceeded from him. 
That's silly. The Holy Spirit is neither begotten of the Father nor the Son. He proceeds from them.
My thoughts exactly
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 19, 2013, 02:09:22 PM
but the accentuation is wrong.  e-GRED-i-tur vs. FIL-i-o-que

 :o

Can you even pronounce that? Horribile auditu!

Wait till you have to pronounce Ennius' poetry.

Quote
Olli respondit suauis sonus Egeriai
Mensas constituit idemque ancilia
Libaque, fictores, Argeos, et tutulatos 
    Volturnalem
Palatualem Furinalem Floralemque
Falacremque et Pomonalem fecit hic idem
Si quid me fuerit humanitus, ut teneatis
    Mettoeoque Fufetioeo
    quianam legiones caedimus ferro.


I have to admit he beats FILioque!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 19, 2013, 06:23:29 PM
Wandile, happy almost-belated 20th birthday!  Filioque is still heretical, but I hope you had a good day anyway.  :P

LOL Thank you Mor,  ;D!! I really enjoyed it!

:)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 19, 2013, 09:58:33 PM
but the accentuation is wrong.  e-GRED-i-tur vs. FIL-i-o-que

 :o

Can you even pronounce that? Horribile auditu!

Wait till you have to pronounce Ennius' poetry.

It ain't Vergil, but then again it's not supposed to be.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 20, 2013, 05:24:33 AM
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.
Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

skill set to argue
lulz

Quote
let alone understand the nuances and/or clear meaning of ancient languages.
And you know he understands this how? Because he has a degree?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 20, 2013, 05:24:33 AM
Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.
Umm so what?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 20, 2013, 11:54:39 AM
Umm so what?

I think that response could be made to pretty much anything that anyone might post.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 20, 2013, 11:55:51 AM
Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.
Umm so what?
It means that he has studied a field that perhaps you have not.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 20, 2013, 11:57:17 AM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 20, 2013, 12:12:22 PM
Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.
Umm so what?
It means that he has studied a field that perhaps you have not.

I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 20, 2013, 12:12:59 PM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 20, 2013, 12:50:56 PM
Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 20, 2013, 12:55:27 PM
Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: podkarpatska on September 20, 2013, 12:59:26 PM
Perhaps our forum administrator could adopt a variant of this old legal maxim as the official OC .net  saying:

 “These are my final words on advocacy. If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.”
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 20, 2013, 01:03:24 PM
And you know he understands this how? Because he has a degree?

You don't get a Classics degree when you buy a six-pack beer. You need to master two languages not many people know. Such a degree gives a certain weight to his posts when we're talking about Latin. And yes, a PhD in Latin does make you an authority on the subject.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 20, 2013, 01:28:45 PM
While there has perhaps been a certain amount of politicization of the degree-granting process (same with other parts of academia, e.g., tenure), it's still a lot of work to get a degree, and the facts of a given language do not change according to modern fashions or politics (in a general sense, of course; new words may be coined or new constructions accepted, but particularly as concerns extinct languages, we can trust the written record as it is studied in classics programs, since these mechanisms of change have been in some sense suspended since there are no longer native speakers to drive innovation), so I would still trust a Latin Ph.D. to speak of things in his or her field. The fact that others might have some other opinion on the matter don't mean much in the grand scheme of things, in the same way that I might have an opinion on something outside of my field, but I defer to those with more knowledge and experience in that area to correct my impressions as necessary. We can't have worthwhile conversations if there is no authority placed in the process by which people may become experts in a given field just because others who haven't done the work to be so recognized might not understand why such things are important in the first place. There are many things I likewise don't understand, but to say "so what?" to them in response to the observations of people who do understand them only confirms my own ignorance, not that their observations don't matter.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 20, 2013, 01:40:32 PM
Umm so what?

I think that response could be made to pretty much anything that anyone might post.
We'd all be bald with the type of hair splitting.

I could be completely wrong though
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 20, 2013, 01:45:23 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 20, 2013, 02:07:27 PM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin...

Procedens or something like that would be the best way to translate ἐκπορευόμενον. Especially if you look to the classical usages of those two words.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 20, 2013, 02:12:00 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 20, 2013, 02:49:57 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.
Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.
To repeat Scandamarius' point, in the same sentence?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 20, 2013, 02:51:40 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations.  

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).  Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.
Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

Speaking as a languagist, it happens all the time in every language. You really don't have to argue with these people.
outside of double entendre, no it doesn't happen in any language.  And since double entendre depends on the verb acting on two objects of the same preposition the same way, it doesn't happen there either.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 20, 2013, 02:53:33 PM
Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

I really don't care, I'm just having a little bit of fun with you.  

Whether it is "could" or "couldn't", what you wanted to say was "care less", not "careless", as in "That was a careless error."  :P  
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 20, 2013, 02:54:45 PM
Not sure what's so lowly about being a high school teacher. Of the many dozens (hundreds?) of books I've read by modern Orthodox authors, possibly the one I found most helpful was by a high school teacher (Panayiotis Nellas). But pardon me for taking things even further astray  :angel:
I have to agree.  My high school students once asked me why I didn't stick with real students.  The top track kids were convinced that I had screwed up for the CIA and was doing penance in the CPS HS system.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on September 20, 2013, 05:15:45 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Could careless

I wouldn't say "Could careless" if you're trying to avoid a visit from the grammar police.  :police:

P.S. For Mor, "I could care less" makes sense if you're being sarcastic and really mean that you couldn't care less ... but that's a little convoluted for my taste.  8)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 20, 2013, 05:22:34 PM

That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).   Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Not in the same sentence, though.
Happens all the time in the Latin text of the Summa theologiae. "Being" and "existence" are routinely applied to God and creatures in an analogical manner.

The Latin of Thomas Aquinas never was of the same purity as that of Cicero, or any of ancients for that matter. That's why scamandrius asked for evidence from the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae or L&S

The (medieval) Latin word for "being" - "ens", for example, was unknown in Antiquity.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 20, 2013, 05:28:30 PM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?
I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on September 20, 2013, 06:15:48 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: LBK on September 20, 2013, 06:40:22 PM
Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

I'll add my voice to that! It sums up much of what happens here ...  :P :P ::)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 20, 2013, 09:11:28 PM
Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

I'll add my voice to that! It sums up much of what happens here ...  :P :P ::)
(http://static.animalpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Foto-3flang_metropolis_moloch_2_stor.png)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Father H on September 20, 2013, 10:45:10 PM
Speaking as a Latinist,

I thought you were a high school teacher who also tutors kids in well Latin for kids.

I'm a Ph.D.
Umm so what?

That makes him an expert in the subject, that's "so what."  If people go to school for a decade, that does not make them an expert on everything.  However, if people go to school for a decade on a particular subject, that does make them an expert on that subject. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Father H on September 20, 2013, 10:47:40 PM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?
I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.


Your whole presentation is interesting.  Let me chew on it a bit. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 20, 2013, 11:24:17 PM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?
I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.


Egredi is even more ambiguous than procedere. I don't think it was used much in philosophical contexts. It's too pedestrian for lofty theology IMO. So is "go out" in English. Qui ex Patre procedit was good enough for Pope Leo III - the Latin Creed should remain the way he sealed it at St. Peter's.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on September 21, 2013, 12:03:59 AM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?
I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.


Egredi is even more ambiguous than procedere. I don't think it was used much in philosophical contexts. It's too pedestrian for lofty theology IMO. So is "go out" in English. Qui ex Patre procedit was good enough for Pope Leo III - the Latin Creed should remain the way he sealed it at St. Peter's.

The same was true of θέλημα too, if I recall. We can always appropriate "pedestrian" words for lofty theology, even if they formerly were not used in philosophical contexts.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 21, 2013, 12:24:57 AM
The same was true of θέλημα too, if I recall. We can always appropriate "pedestrian" words for lofty theology, even if they formerly were not used in philosophical contexts.

Theological language is already solidified in Latin. It's a millenary Christian tradition. You just can't be as linguistically creative as if you were translating the Creed in Swahili for the first time.

θέλημα is at least as old as the Lord's prayer in Greek.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 02:36:37 AM
As far as the original issue is concerned I still think that correcting the way that the Latin Church translates the word ἐκπορευόμενον could go a long way to reconciling the two sides.

I know you mentioned, earlier, how you would translate ἐκπορευόμενον into Latin ... but what would (or might) that become in English?
I would translate the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit - i.e., the section with the alteration to the Latin that I made in an earlier post - as follows:

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life,
Who goes out from the Father,
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
Who has spoken through the prophets.


Egredi is even more ambiguous than procedere. I don't think it was used much in philosophical contexts. It's too pedestrian for lofty theology IMO. So is "go out" in English. Qui ex Patre procedit was good enough for Pope Leo III - the Latin Creed should remain the way he sealed it at St. Peter's.
My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 21, 2013, 03:00:18 AM
My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.

If a word like procedit has been traditionally used to translate the Greek ekporeuomenon, it assumes its meaning in virtue of this very equivalence. For instance, Hebrew kavod (from a root which means "heavy" ~ might/weight) was equivalated with Greek doxa ("opinion, reputation") and Latin claritas ("brightness") or gloria ("renown" < *gnoria). Thus the Greek and Latin words inherited all the semantic connotations of the biblical kavod, even if originally they might have had different meanings.

Otherwise, there are even weirder correspondences between Latin and Greek: substantia is calqued after Gk. hypostasis, but it is used to translate ousia ("essence"), even though these concepts are used contradistinctively in trinitarian theology.   
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 03:23:52 AM
My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.

If a word like procedit has been traditionally used to translate the Greek ekporeuomenon, it assumes its meaning in virtue of this very equivalence. For instance, Hebrew kavod (from a root which means "heavy" ~ might/weight) was equivalated with Greek doxa ("opinion, reputation") and Latin claritas ("brightness") or gloria ("renown" < *gnoria). Thus the Greek and Latin words inherited all the semantic connotations of the biblical kavod, even if originally they might have had different meanings.

Otherwise, there are even weirder correspondences between Latin and Greek: substantia is calqued after Gk. hypostasis, but it is used to translate ousia ("essence"), even though these concepts are used contradistinctively in trinitarian theology.   
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associated for so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion. Quite frankly I do not really care what Latin words are used, so long as two different Latin words are used to translated προϊέναι and ἐκπορευόμενον. My approach was to try and change the Latin word associated with ἐκπορευόμενον because it would help to facilitate the break with the Latin Church's use of the filioque in the creed. In other words, if a new Latin word were used in the creed to speak of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father the filioque could be more easily dropped. But again I really do not care what words are used so long as two Latin words are used to translate the two Greek words that are normally associated with the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father alone and His progression through the Son.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 21, 2013, 03:29:21 AM
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on September 21, 2013, 04:55:48 AM
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.
Pope St.Leo III of Rome told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque. But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in ... :

"the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."
This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Latin reads, "Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 05:49:05 AM
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.
I guess there is no solution. God bless.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 21, 2013, 11:17:12 AM
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.
I guess there is no solution. God bless.

The solution is simple: to excise the addition, without any other alteration.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 21, 2013, 11:20:59 AM
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.
Pope St.Leo III of Rome told Bl. Charlemagne (January 28) that he agreed with the doctrine of Filioque. But Pope St. Leo III--who omitted Filioque from the Creed for the sake of Church unity and was aware of the sensitivity of the Greeks about their Creed and the nuances of ἐκπορευόμενον vs. προείναι--openly confessed, in letter to all the Eastern Churches, his belief in ... :

"the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..."
This manifestly concerns the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.

The Latin reads, "Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens."
Pope Leo III didn't omit the filioque; he refused to insert it.

Missing this point points out someone has missed the point.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 21, 2013, 11:23:48 AM
My reason for choosing that word is precisely because it has not been used much, and so we can assign a technical meaning to it, while allowing the more common Latin word translated as procession to be used to translate the Greek word προϊέναι, because it is already heavily associated in the West with a procession from the Father and (but better - through) the Son. I am not saying that my proposal is perfect, but I think it would be helpful to get the Latins to translate the two primary Greek words used in talking about the Spirit with two Latin words, instead of just one.

If a word like procedit has been traditionally used to translate the Greek ekporeuomenon, it assumes its meaning in virtue of this very equivalence. For instance, Hebrew kavod (from a root which means "heavy" ~ might/weight) was equivalated with Greek doxa ("opinion, reputation") and Latin claritas ("brightness") or gloria ("renown" < *gnoria). Thus the Greek and Latin words inherited all the semantic connotations of the biblical kavod, even if originally they might have had different meanings.

Otherwise, there are even weirder correspondences between Latin and Greek: substantia is calqued after Gk. hypostasis, but it is used to translate ousia ("essence"), even though these concepts are used contradistinctively in trinitarian theology.   
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associated for so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion. Quite frankly I do not really care what Latin words are used, so long as two different Latin words are used to translated προϊέναι and ἐκπορευόμενον. My approach was to try and change the Latin word associated with ἐκπορευόμενον because it would help to facilitate the break with the Latin Church's use of the filioque in the creed. In other words, if a new Latin word were used in the creed to speak of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father the filioque could be more easily dropped. But again I really do not care what words are used so long as two Latin words are used to translate the two Greek words that are normally associated with the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father alone and His progression through the Son.
you both have hit on the problem.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 11:35:14 AM
The problem as I see it is that procedit has been associate so long with the double procession that it would be nearly impossible to separate it from that notion.

Pope Leo III didn't associate it with any double procession...

It's not like the Latins were such a naive bunch that Greek "subtleties" still escape them. They have textual criticism and historical evidence. Let them admit, explain and proclaim the truth. 

At this point, it's a matter of good will, not faulty terminology.
I guess there is no solution. God bless.

The solution is simple: to excise the addition, without any other alteration.
Even if the Roman Church dropped the filioque from the creed the Latins would continue to believe in the double procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle, because they would continue to translate the Greek terms ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι with only one Latin word, and so a false equivalence would continue to exists between the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, and His progression through the Son. Now - of course - if all you care about is the removal of the filioque from the creed it follows that you would be able to consider yourself the winner through its removal, but if you actually want the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to believe the same thing about the Spirit's origin solely from the Father and His progression through the Son you would actually be the loser, because the Latins would continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing.

God bless.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 21, 2013, 11:39:03 AM
How many Roman Catholics speak Latin as their first language? So why try to find a Latin word to precisely cover ekporeuomai?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 11:41:55 AM
How many Roman Catholics speak Latin as their first language? So why try to find a Latin word to precisely cover ekporeuomai?
For the Roman Church only the Latin text is held to be truly authoritative, which is why all the vernacular language texts of the creed used within the Roman Church's liturgy are made from the Latin text. It follows that it you alter the Latin text you can change the vernacular translations that come from it.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 21, 2013, 11:48:27 AM
Now - of course - if all you care about is the removal of the filioque from the creed it follows that you would be able to consider yourself the winner through its removal, but if you actually want the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to believe the same thing about the Spirit's origin solely from the Father and His progression through the Son you would actually be the loser, because the Latins would continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing.

No, you see I personally have no stake in this. It's the Latins that need the truth to make them free from heresy.

It's the Roman Magisterium's business to recant all the dubious teachings about double procession, from Blessed Augustine onwards, as well as the 40+ treatises Contra errores Graecorum authored by Latin theologians such as the Angelic Doctor.   
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 11:52:15 AM
The goal of my proposal was to help the Roman Church to distinguish between ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι. I did not claim that my proposal was perfect, but I thought it would help the Roman Church to come to grips with a distinction that it presently does not make because it would require that the Latins translate those two Greek words with two different Latin words, instead of only one Latin word. Based upon some of the responses here it has become evident to me that some Orthodox Christians do not really care what the Latins actually believe as long as they simply remove the filioque from the creed. That probably - over the course of time - is something that can be achieved (i.e., the removal of the filioque), but it would be a hollow victory as long as the Latins continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing, because as long as that is the case it follows that they will continue to believe that the Spirit is caused by the Son in the same way that He is caused by the Father.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 11:57:04 AM
Now - of course - if all you care about is the removal of the filioque from the creed it follows that you would be able to consider yourself the winner through its removal, but if you actually want the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches to believe the same thing about the Spirit's origin solely from the Father and His progression through the Son you would actually be the loser, because the Latins would continue to believe that ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι mean the same thing.

No, you see I personally have no stake in this. It's the Latins that need the truth to make them free from heresy.

It's the Roman Magisterium's business to recant all the dubious teachings about double procession, from Blessed Augustine onwards, as well as the 40+ treatises Contra errores Graecorum authored by Latin theologians such as the Angelic Doctor.   
I see. So you would rather that the disagreement on this issue persist, and have a false peace by the simple removal of the filioque from the creed. I - on the other hand - would prefer to help the Latins to come to see the light by proposing a positive solution to an ongoing issue of division. I am sure the Latins will prefer your position because they can remove the filioque while continuing to believe it in, and you would be none the wiser. God bless.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 21, 2013, 11:57:20 AM
Actually, the definition of Florence has to go as well.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 21, 2013, 11:58:27 AM
How many Roman Catholics speak Latin as their first language? So why try to find a Latin word to precisely cover ekporeuomai?

In Romanian, the Orthodox confess that the Holy Spirit is "Domnul de viață făcătorul, Care din Tatăl purcede” (< Lat. procedit). The RCs use the same word, but add the filioque: "Domnul de viață dătătorul, Care de la Tatăl și de la Fiul purcede”. I suppose it's the same for all English speaking Orthodox who use the same word of Latin origin ("proceed" from procedere) to proclaim their Orthodox faith. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 21, 2013, 12:05:25 PM
Actually, the definition of Florence has to go as well.
Yes, it does, because it claims that the Son causes the Holy Spirit's subsistent being. My proposal to translate things in a new way is simply intended to help the Latins come to terms with the two distinct realities conveyed by the Greek words ἐκπορευόμενον and προϊέναι. As you can see from my proposed Latin text for the section of the creed on the Holy Spirit the filioque is still removed, because it has no place in that section of the creed. It was my hope that by giving the Latins a technical term - distinct from procedit - to stand for the Spirit's eternal origin from the Father alone, that they could more easily come to grips with the nuances of meaning found in the Greek words used by the Church Fathers to speak of the Spirit's origin and His progression.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 21, 2013, 01:54:05 PM
Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

I'll add my voice to that! It sums up much of what happens here ...  :P :P ::)
(http://static.animalpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Foto-3flang_metropolis_moloch_2_stor.png)

I've played that game!

(http://applenapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/contra_evolution2.jpg)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 21, 2013, 08:27:24 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

And yet you're somehow qualified to critique me as a Latinist.  Bravo.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 21, 2013, 08:31:20 PM
Unfortunately, degrees don't seem to matter on the internet. Only in real life, where most people don't even argue about this stuff in the first place.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 21, 2013, 08:31:56 PM
Credentials mean nothing when compared to arguments. I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

lulz

LOUDER:I am never disappointed when I am reminded how much our pop culture has devalued academic accomplishment while elevating opinion to an altar upon which it is worshipped like a Babylonian gold idol.

I'll add my voice to that! It sums up much of what happens here ...  :P :P ::)
(http://static.animalpolitico.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Foto-3flang_metropolis_moloch_2_stor.png)

I've played that game!

(http://applenapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/contra_evolution2.jpg)

I didn't know that the movie Metropolis is the inspiration for Contra.  Now, I will have to dig out my old NES!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 21, 2013, 08:32:27 PM
Unfortunately, degrees don't seem to matter on the internet. Only in real life, where most people don't even argue about this stuff in the first place.

You've never been to my house. ;)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 21, 2013, 10:30:46 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

And yet you're somehow qualified to critique me as a Latinist.  Bravo.

It's the yellow dot...beats a PhD any day of the week.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: LBK on September 21, 2013, 10:49:19 PM

It's the yellow dot...beats a PhD any day of the week.

ZING!!  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ignatius on September 21, 2013, 11:11:19 PM
In Roman symbolism, wasn't the dove a symbol of 'peace'?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Father H on September 27, 2013, 10:35:26 PM
Unfortunately, degrees don't seem to matter on the internet. Only in real life, where most people don't even argue about this stuff in the first place.

lol.  Post of month (and no, I am not kidding). 
Note to self:  abstain from internet when possible.   
It matters in "real life" only in classes with people who have already been in the real world.  But even in classes, there are less boundaries than used to exist.  I can't wait to tell my ethics class (of medical professionals) that I am a priest, which won't happen until the 4th week. 
You are right that in general, people in real life don't even argue about this stuff.  In fact, most people are glad, if they can understand it, to have any nuggets of wisdom that surpass the normal garbage that they encounter daily.   
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Father H on September 27, 2013, 10:37:46 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

And yet you're somehow qualified to critique me as a Latinist.  Bravo.

It's the yellow dot...beats a PhD any day of the week.

 ::)

I used to like you.  Give me back my gift of frankincense.   :P
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on September 28, 2013, 03:42:58 PM
Unfortunately, degrees don't seem to matter on the internet. Only in real life, where most people don't even argue about this stuff in the first place.

lol.  Post of month (and no, I am not kidding). 
Note to self:  abstain from internet when possible.   
It matters in "real life" only in classes with people who have already been in the real world.  But even in classes, there are less boundaries than used to exist.  I can't wait to tell my ethics class (of medical professionals) that I am a priest, which won't happen until the 4th week. 
You are right that in general, people in real life don't even argue about this stuff.  In fact, most people are glad, if they can understand it, to have any nuggets of wisdom that surpass the normal garbage that they encounter daily.   
with the advent of reality TV, real life has been abolished, after decades of People Magazine and the National Enquirer making it obsolete.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 28, 2013, 05:08:21 PM
I used to like you.  Give me back my gift of frankincense.   :P

Um, what incense, Father?  :)

(The yellow dot thing was a joke, btw...)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cyrillic on September 28, 2013, 05:13:39 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

And yet you're somehow qualified to critique me as a Latinist.  Bravo.

I wouldn't worry to much about people on the internet questioning my credentials, Dr. Rdr. Scamandrius.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Romaios on September 28, 2013, 05:34:04 PM
I used to like you.  Give me back my gift of frankincense.   :P

Um, what incense, Father?  :)

(The yellow dot thing was a joke, btw...)

"To incense" means in many an "Orthodox" language to praise or flatter someone, unlike in English where it can mean the opposite: to get mad at smth/smb or annoy.

Also, somebody who hasn't been to church much is called "unincensed" in Greek.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 28, 2013, 05:43:35 PM
Well that's definitely something I never knew until today.  :)
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 29, 2013, 02:07:22 PM
I couldn't careless if you had a PhD with highest honors in Latin, doesn't make you some authority on the subject/

I didn't notice these gems until now! 
Could careless, couldn't don't really know Mor but I think you get my point.

Have had geez what is that past particle or something?

I sure am not a master of my native tongue

And yet you're somehow qualified to critique me as a Latinist.  Bravo.

I wouldn't worry to much about people on the internet questioning my credentials, Dr. Rdr. Scamandrius.

You're right, Cyrillic, but as I'm no fan of Achronos and he's no fan of mine,  I took it more personally than I should have.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 29, 2013, 02:11:37 PM
This is how terrible my memory has become I don't even remember writing the above.

But yeah I don't care what degrees you have, unless you are using it in the context of a blank waving contest.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: scamandrius on September 29, 2013, 02:18:53 PM
This is how terrible my memory has become I don't even remember writing the above.

But yeah I don't care what degrees you have, unless you are using it in the context of a  penis waving contest.

Because that's exactly what I was doing.

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 29, 2013, 02:20:34 PM
This is how terrible my memory has become I don't even remember writing the above.

But yeah I don't care what degrees you have, unless you are using it in the context of a  penis waving contest.

Because that's exactly what I was doing.


Yeah that is exactly what you are doing.

Anytime you appeal to your own accomplishments in order to "make" an argument it is questionable at best.

All you are trying to do is assert your superiority over anyone else.

Now get mad again like you always do. Call me a troll or an idiot because that's all you got.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 29, 2013, 02:31:17 PM
Anytime you appeal to your own accomplishments in order to "make" an argument it is questionable at best.

All you are trying to do is assert your superiority over anyone else.

If you think his argument was "I have a PhD in Latin so shut the ____ up", you aren't thinking when you read. 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 29, 2013, 02:42:27 PM
Bringing up credentials in a context in which a person questions the basis for your assertions is not an appeal to accomplishments. It's an appeal to experience. It's saying, in essence, "I know about this topic because I worked on it for hundreds/thousands of hours, wrote a thesis/dissertation, took qualifying exams, etc., so I have a lot of experience with it, and that experience/those papers/exams have been confirmed by my peers in the field (i.e., thesis/dissertation committe, department chair, etc.), leading to my degree." It is most definitely not saying "I have a degree and you don't, therefore I am right and you are not."

If you don't want to listen to other people who have degrees in the field(s) under consideration, that's on you, but please do not attempt to reduce the very hard work that goes into getting a degree into an excuse by arrogant people to wave their credentials in other people's faces. That's not what it's about, and it's a rather ugly stereotype to be propagating about other people just because they've worked really hard on something that is important to them. I don't know what you do for a living, Achronos, but I would think you would find it very inappropriate for someone to seize upon it in order to make you out to be a jerk when you're just doing what you've been trained/trained yourself to do in order to work and live.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 29, 2013, 03:08:30 PM
Anytime you appeal to your own accomplishments in order to "make" an argument it is questionable at best.

All you are trying to do is assert your superiority over anyone else.

If you think his argument was "I have a PhD in Latin so shut the ____ up", you aren't thinking when you read. 
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

No your reading comprehension needs work.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 29, 2013, 03:22:01 PM
Bringing up credentials in a context in which a person questions the basis for your assertions is not an appeal to accomplishments.
Uh yes it is Jeremy.

If you can't make a good argument for which you are discussion and then pull out your cred in order to justify poor arguments, that is an appeal to past achievments rather than THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS.

That is my entire point which you and the others here have consistently missed.

Arguments matter not the papers that are framed up on the wall.

Guess what Jeremy, there have been plenty of people who have PhDs that are total hacks.

It doesn't make you an expert at anything.


Quote
It's an appeal to experience.
Outside of the degrees what experience then?

Because working towards those degrees are not real life experiences. Period.

Quote
It's saying, in essence, "I know about this topic because I worked on it for hundreds/thousands of hours, wrote a thesis/dissertation, took qualifying exams, etc., so I have a lot of experience with it, and that experience/those papers/exams have been confirmed by my peers in the field (i.e., thesis/dissertation committe, department chair, etc.), leading to my degree." It is most definitely not saying "I have a degree and you don't, therefore I am right and you are not."
We don't know what he did to work for it, all we know is he has papers.

Again it doesn't matter. Stick to the arguments because the proof is in the pudding.

And let's not get into the standards of higher education on getting those degrees. The majority of all bachelor degree graduates have retained zip from their education.

Quote
but please do not attempt to reduce the very hard work that goes into getting a degree into an excuse by arrogant people to wave their credentials in other people's faces.
Where is my reduction? Getting defensive now Jeremy?

And yes that is EXACTLY what he did above. You clearly need to work on reading too.

Quote
That's not what it's about, and it's a rather ugly stereotype to be propagating about other people just because they've worked really hard on something that is important to them.
OK so what?

Quote
I don't know what you do for a living, Achronos, but I would think you would find it very inappropriate for someone to seize upon it in order to make you out to be a jerk when you're just doing what you've been trained/trained yourself to do in order to work and live.
That doesn't make any sense.

Go ahead and disparage what I do for a living.

I am satisfied and happy with my decisions in life, and I don't feel the need to point to any of it to assert me being better than others here.

Nor do I need to point to my credentials in order to make an argument.

scamandrius has done this in the past, this is not just the first time.

You see Jeremy, older people love to point to their own successes in the past as a means to overcome their own personal problems with age and then pass that judgment over younger people such as myself because hey we have more upside.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on September 29, 2013, 04:39:00 PM
I have a PhD in forumology and it is my professional opinion that this thread is a travesty.  I will be using it as an example of what not to do in my next book due out in stores in November.  Mention this post and you get a 10% discount.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shiny on September 29, 2013, 05:14:06 PM
I have a PhD in forumology and it is my professional opinion that this thread is a travesty.  I will be using it as an example of what not to do in my next book due out in stores in November.  Mention this post and you get a 10% discount.
Good thing you aren't wasting included bookmarks.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: dzheremi on September 29, 2013, 05:35:01 PM
I don't really want to get into a back-and-forth about this, but my point is that to treat a degree as though it is only a 'piece of paper that is framed up on a wall' just because there certainly are some PhD's that are hacks (there are hacks in every walk of life, but that doesn't generally devalue whatever profession they're in, only them as individuals) does not accurately represent what is actually involved in getting a degree, or what having a degree actually means. It's not the be-all and end-all of any argument, nor a free pass to wave your credentials in anyone's face, but it does represent real work and real knowledge gained in a given field. To say "We don't know what he did to work for it, we just know he has papers" is odd. We might not know the exact credit-hours formula (this varies by university; while I am done with courses, from what I can remember, at my current university it is 36 hours + qualifying exams or 24 + thesis), this is largely irrelevant, as the 'papers' are what you get for doing the work, so by virtue of having the papers, we can know that he (or anyone who is granted a degree) has done the work. At any reputable university, they're not handed out just for showing up. That was my whole point. The degree represents the work, and the confirmation of the work as valuable and scientifically valid (for scientific fields, that is) in so far that they are accepted toward the degree.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ilyazhito on September 29, 2013, 05:39:56 PM
If the filioque were to be kept, it would be "qui ex patri per filium procedit", as that would make more sense, because the Father is the only source of the Godhead. All three members of the Trinity are distinct, and implying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son causes theological absurdities, in addition to not being approved by an ecumenical council.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on September 29, 2013, 06:09:29 PM
Anytime you appeal to your own accomplishments in order to "make" an argument it is questionable at best.

All you are trying to do is assert your superiority over anyone else.

If you think his argument was "I have a PhD in Latin so shut the ____ up", you aren't thinking when you read. 
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

No your reading comprehension needs work.

Keep digging, friend...one day we'll all end up in such a hole, but you will have been prepared.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: edati on September 29, 2013, 06:51:09 PM
Anytime you appeal to your own accomplishments in order to "make" an argument it is questionable at best.

All you are trying to do is assert your superiority over anyone else.

If you think his argument was "I have a PhD in Latin so shut the ____ up", you aren't thinking when you read. 
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

No your reading comprehension needs work.

Keep digging, friend...one day we'll all end up in such a hole, but you will have been prepared.

scamandrius' argument started way up than Achronos posted,


That's not how your Creed reads.  That's how you want us to believe you mean it, but you can't prove that conclusively from your own Church's historical records, nor can you argue that this is the plain sense of the Latin text or its various translations. 

Exactly.  You cannot have one verb (procedit) mean one thing when it relates to "from the Father" (ex patre) and then mean another thing when it relates to the "and from the Son" (filioque).   Speaking as a Latinist, I can find no instance in classical or post-classical Latin where the verb has two different (if not opposite) meanings when it is employed only one time for two different prepositional phrases.  Show me some evidence from the TLL or Lewis and Short and I'll reconsider it.  It's nothing but linguistic gymnastics that would make Suetonius blush!
Actually, some words are capable of analogical or even equivocal predication .

Yes, but that is NOT what's going on here.  Again, you show me some other Latin EVIDENCE that procedit will assume different meanings with each object of the same preposition "ex" and I'll reconsider my objection (not to the filioque theologically, but to your linguistic contortions).  Until you can provide EVIDENCE in the Latin language that this has happened before, I will reject it.

I'm still waiting for filioquists to answer the argument presented, AND the evidence that scamandrius was asking. What do you have Achronos?

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on September 29, 2013, 07:15:25 PM
If the filioque were to be kept, it would be "qui ex patri per filium procedit", as that would make more sense, because the Father is the only source of the Godhead. All three members of the Trinity are distinct, and implying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son causes theological absurdities, in addition to not being approved by an ecumenical council.
The creed is about the origin of the Spirit from the Father, while the per filium is not. Neither the filioque nor the per filium belong in the creed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ilyazhito on October 01, 2013, 01:54:27 PM
Yes, even the per filium formulation does not belong. The Holy Spirit is sent through the Son from the Father, so that would have to be specified if any changes were to be made to the creed. However, I would not change the Creed without another ecumenical council, and I think that the current formulation is more than satisfactory. Even in the West, the Pope who crowned Charlemagne inscribed the Creed on St. Peter's Basilica without the Filioque.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on October 01, 2013, 03:05:33 PM
The creed was designed to speak to the origination of the Son and the Spirit, i.e., theologia properly speaking. The per filium is not about that and has no place in the creed. The creed should be accepted, without any changes, as it was put forth at the Council of Constantinople.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on October 01, 2013, 03:08:40 PM
However, I would not change the Creed without another ecumenical council, and I think that the current formulation is more than satisfactory.
I would not change the creed even at an ecumenical council. It should stand as it has been set forth by the God-inspired Fathers of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: TheTrisagion on October 01, 2013, 03:12:29 PM
However, I would not change the Creed without another ecumenical council, and I think that the current formulation is more than satisfactory.
I would not change the creed even at an ecumenical council. It should stand as it has been set forth by the God-inspired Fathers of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).
Well, it if was an ecumenical council, then it would be God-inspired Fathers setting forth the revision.  That being said, I think there is a snowball's chance in the Amazon of the Church deciding to change the Creed, so I'm not too concerned.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Papist on October 01, 2013, 04:37:29 PM
However, I would not change the Creed without another ecumenical council, and I think that the current formulation is more than satisfactory.
I would not change the creed even at an ecumenical council. It should stand as it has been set forth by the God-inspired Fathers of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).
Well, it if was an ecumenical council, then it would be God-inspired Fathers setting forth the revision.  That being said, I think there is a snowball's chance in the Amazon of the Church deciding to change the Creed, so I'm not too concerned.  :laugh:
I still would have no problem returning to wording of Nicea. I mean, that's the way we recite it the Byzantine parish I attend anyway.  ;D
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on October 01, 2013, 04:47:10 PM
However, I would not change the Creed without another ecumenical council, and I think that the current formulation is more than satisfactory.
I would not change the creed even at an ecumenical council. It should stand as it has been set forth by the God-inspired Fathers of the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381).
Well, it if was an ecumenical council, then it would be God-inspired Fathers setting forth the revision.  That being said, I think there is a snowball's chance in the Amazon of the Church deciding to change the Creed, so I'm not too concerned.  :laugh:
It would be a change in the creed that would alter the original intention, which was to speak about the origin of the Son and Spirit. To add the per filium would mean that the creed no longer dealt with the Spirit's hypostatic origin, but simply His progression as grace. As I see it that would be a rather radical and completely unnecessary change to the creed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: orthonorm on October 01, 2013, 05:25:39 PM
I don't really want to get into a back-and-forth about this, but my point is that to treat a degree as though it is only a 'piece of paper that is framed up on a wall' just because there certainly are some PhD's that are hacks (there are hacks in every walk of life, but that doesn't generally devalue whatever profession they're in, only them as individuals) does not accurately represent what is actually involved in getting a degree, or what having a degree actually means. It's not the be-all and end-all of any argument, nor a free pass to wave your credentials in anyone's face, but it does represent real work and real knowledge gained in a given field. To say "We don't know what he did to work for it, we just know he has papers" is odd. We might not know the exact credit-hours formula (this varies by university; while I am done with courses, from what I can remember, at my current university it is 36 hours + qualifying exams or 24 + thesis), this is largely irrelevant, as the 'papers' are what you get for doing the work, so by virtue of having the papers, we can know that he (or anyone who is granted a degree) has done the work. At any reputable university, they're not handed out just for showing up. That was my whole point. The degree represents the work, and the confirmation of the work as valuable and scientifically valid (for scientific fields, that is) in so far that they are accepted toward the degree.

They are handed out pretty much for just showing up. Even at reputable Universities, but the point here is, let your words HERE be louder than the letters you think you have to offer as back-up when making the most propedeutic of points.

Let's pick on Romeo.

I think he told me once he was from Romania and studied something, maybe philology, I don't remember. I don't really care.

This was in response to some compliment by me: like how many PhDs do you have??!?!?!?, cause his posts here show he knows what he is talking about.

Nothing that gets talked about here for the most part, especially regarding language, theology, or history is terribly sophisticated, so no one here needs to tell me how they wasted their time to impress me. No need to resort to University cred. If you are a REAL doctor, like give out meds, then please let me know that when you talk about subjects related to health. Or if you dismiss some science around here, OTHERS would need your credentials cause the science literacy around is about nil if you look at stuff like creation or diet thread.

There are a lot of people here who are obvious experts to any informed lay person reading their posts (this is not inclusive):

Punch
Romeo
Opus
Isa
Ionnis
* (Yeah, I am serious about *)

Two out of those folks I don't necessarily get butterflies in my stomach when I see their name and yet they have an obvious grasp and expertise of certain subjects and I would be a fool to ignore them.

One of them is a high school teacher with a PhD!!!!!!!! and I bet his students reap a lot from his studies and expansive knowledge.

So show, don't tell. Many here should have learned in that grade school before they got their PhD.

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: orthonorm on October 01, 2013, 05:28:09 PM
Orthonorm called my credentials into question by implying I'm some lowly high school teacher who couldn't possibly know anything about Latin or even be called a Latinist.  I have a B.A. in Classical Languages, an M.A. in Classical Language another in English and my Ph.D. in Classical Studies with my area of concentration being Late Antiquity, focusing on the Latin West from 200-700 A.D. I hope this clears up any question about my credentials to discuss anything Latin related.  If you need anything more before I submit future posts, please PM me.

LOL. I didn't see all this fall out. Talk about spin.

I didn't do the above. I pointed out you were a high school teacher. You made and connected the rest of the dots.

It's your cross not mine you're dragging around.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on October 01, 2013, 06:14:07 PM
Bottom Line:

You keep the Filioque

We are happy without it.

End of subject.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: orthonorm on October 01, 2013, 06:54:01 PM
Bottom Line:

You keep the Filioque

We are happy without it.

End of subject.

Except many of the arguments against it, scam's for instance, make zero sense.

And really as someone who doesn't care, Papist has been clear elsewhere and what little I've read here that his understanding of the symbol of faith is rather Orthodox.

I'll let the teachers figure this all out. I would rather skip school frankly.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Shlomlokh on October 01, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
Bottom Line:

You keep the Filioque

We are happy without it.

End of subject.

Except many of the arguments against it, scam's for instance, make zero sense.

And really as someone who doesn't care, Papist has been clear elsewhere and what little I've read here that his understanding of the symbol of faith is rather Orthodox.

I'll let the teachers figure this all out. I would rather skip school frankly.
And here we thought you were dead!
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Peter J on October 10, 2013, 07:48:15 PM
The issue is whether the Father is the sole source/originator (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) of the Spirit or not. Whether procedit in Latin can mean send is an entirely different issue.

The question is this: if we use the Greek word ekporeuesthai to describe the procession of the Holy Spirit, instead of the word procedit would it be heresy?
That is why I put forward the proposal in the post below:

Maybe the Latins should come up with a new way of translating the portion of the creed that concerns the Holy Spirit, and in the process truly clarify matters and help to bring about a real common understanding of the Spirit's existential origin from the Father alone.

Something like this:  "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui egreditur ex Patre, qui cum Patre et Filio adoratur et glorificatur . . ."
Perhaps if the Roman Church basically designated a Latin word (e.g., egreditur) that would exclusively be used to translate the Greek term ἐκπορεύεσθαι real progress could be made on the issue of the origin of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I admit that my own take on the issue is that Rome really does not want to clarify the issue if the clarification involves either relativizing or worse repudiating (i.e., from the Roman Catholic perspective) what was put forward at Lyons II and Florence.

At the risk of going off on a tanget, have you ever read the paper "Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time" (Woodstock Forum, September 25, 2005) by Father Thomas Hopko? Particularly this part:

Quote
He [the pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not “from both as from one" (ab utroque sicut ab uno).
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Apotheoun on October 10, 2013, 09:37:26 PM
At the risk of going off on a tanget, have you ever read the paper "Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time" (Woodstock Forum, September 25, 2005) by Father Thomas Hopko? Particularly this part:

Quote
He [the pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not “from both as from one" (ab utroque sicut ab uno).
Yeah, I read it years ago.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 16, 2015, 10:07:51 PM
This is why the Bishop of Rome forbade the Filioque:

"HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI"

"I, Leo, put this here for love and protection of Orthodox Faith"

He was doing his job as an Orthodox Hierarch.  It was for love and protection of Orthodox Faith.  You are assigning false motive ("Church Unity") and this is intellectually dishonest.

In fact, Unity of Faith is the basis of Church Unity.  And this is what all Orthodox Hierarchs are sworn to uphold.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 16, 2015, 10:15:46 PM
To say that the Filioque was added to defeat Arianism is merely a pretext.  It was inserted for a political reason.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Xavier on April 17, 2015, 06:30:11 AM
The same St. Leo III who wrote those words confessed dogmatically the doctrine of the Filioque, though he did not wish to add it to the Creed at the time. He stated, "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..." ("Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens." )

Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople acknowledged the East has always believed what is denied by some posters here, "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." (ο Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον.)

Numerous other Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors have declared the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. St. Leo the Great, "as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.", Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity.", the rejection of the doctrine professed here by a small section in Constantinople came much later.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 17, 2015, 07:13:30 AM
The Fathers spoke by convenience of language. They said "from the Father and the Son" and "from Both", meaning to say "from the Father through the Son". It is a matter of convenience of speech.

They in fact have clarified their meaning for us, either in the same passage when the expression is used or in different passages.

But none of them ever taught that the Son is an Origin and Cause in Eternal Spiration.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 17, 2015, 07:14:34 AM
I will put this simply:

Do you say that the Son is an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on April 17, 2015, 10:30:36 AM
The same St. Leo III who wrote those words confessed dogmatically the doctrine of the Filioque, though he did not wish to add it to the Creed at the time. He stated, "the Holy Spirit, proceeding equally from the Father and from the Son, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son. The Father, complete God in Himself, the Son, complete God begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit, complete God proceeding from the Father and the Son..." ("Spiritum Sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantialem, coaeternum Patri et Filio. Pater plenus Deus in se, Filius plenus Deus a Patre genitus, Spiritus Sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens." )

Patriarch St. Tarasius of Constantinople acknowledged the East has always believed what is denied by some posters here, "And in the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son, and Who is acknowledged to be Himself God." (ο Πνευμα το αγιον, το κυριον και ζωοποιον, το εκ του Πατροσ δια του Υιου εκπορευομενον.)

Numerous other Popes, Saints, Fathers and Doctors have declared the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. St. Leo the Great, "as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.", Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity.", the rejection of the doctrine professed here by a small section in Constantinople came much later.

Ok, if you are happy with this addition fine. We will stick with the original.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 17, 2015, 10:40:59 AM
The Bishop of Rome Leo III of course affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

But regarding the novelty and heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (as another Origin and Cause), he in accordance with his Orthodox Episcopal vow said:

"HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI"

"I, Leo, put this here for love and protection of Orthodox Faith"

He was doing his job as an Orthodox Hierarch.  It was for love and protection of Orthodox Faith.

In fact, Unity of Faith is the basis of Church Unity.  And this is what all Orthodox Hierarchs are sworn to uphold.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Xavier on April 17, 2015, 10:57:53 AM
Yes, Joe, I am happy and would be happy if all Christians professed together the dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father and through the Son, as St. Leo III and St. Tarasius have done. Before we come to discipline, we must settle the doctrine. Is the doctrine of the Filioque true?

For centuries before 1054 A.D. and the controversies between Rome and Caerularius, or even 860-880 and those with Photius, the Church of Rome had dogmatically professed as a confession of Catholic Faith necessary for salvation, "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; not made, not begotten, but proceeding", St. Fulgentius says "Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." and St. Isidore, "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." Therefore, there can be no dispute about the doctrine itself to us Catholics, nor does the Church ask the Orthodox to profess anything other than what these Fathers professed.

As for the issue of the addition in the Creed, Rome never insisted, even at Florence, when Latins and Greeks confessed together the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son", that the Greeks add the Filioque to their Creed. Filioque was added in the West to deal with local heresies, only those who had slighted the dignity of Christ in the West had historically tried to throw doubt on the Spirit's procession from the Son and it was dogmatically defined in order to anathematize them. Those who denied the doctrine of the Filioque also denied that the Holy Ghost is from the Father and through the Son, though this was professed by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II. The formula used by St. Tarasius was discarded by Photius and others among the Greeks, as Church historian Philip Schaff records, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).

Kyrillios, the Latin West and the Greek East do not understand terms like cause and principle in the same way. Give me a common dogmatic definition of these terms, otherwise it will not be possible to have a common understanding of what is defined. Theological terms like cause are meant to explain the defined doctrine. We say the Father is cause of the Son and Spirit, whereas the Father gives to the Son by generation that the Spirit should proceed from Him as well. St. Cyril says, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." By the Son being cause do you mean that the Son has from the Father as "proper to His Person that the Spirit should be in and from Him", or do you mean something else? Define what you mean by "cause" precisely, for what St. Cyril says is what we mean, but I think we do not mean by cause the same thing you do.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 17, 2015, 11:03:46 AM
"From the Father through the Son" does not make the Son an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit.

Give simple answer:  Do you confess according to Florence and Lyons that the Son is a secondary (not principle) and mediate (not immediate) origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Iconodule on April 17, 2015, 01:18:19 PM
"From the Father through the Son" does not make the Son an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit.

Give simple answer:  Do you confess according to Florence and Lyons that the Son is a secondary (not principle) and mediate (not immediate) origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?

The position of Florence and Lyons is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one principle.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on April 17, 2015, 04:24:29 PM
Yes, Joe, I am happy and would be happy if all Christians professed together the dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father and through the Son, as St. Leo III and St. Tarasius have done. Before we come to discipline, we must settle the doctrine. Is the doctrine of the Filioque true?

For centuries before 1054 A.D. and the controversies between Rome and Caerularius, or even 860-880 and those with Photius, the Church of Rome had dogmatically professed as a confession of Catholic Faith necessary for salvation, "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; not made, not begotten, but proceeding", St. Fulgentius says "Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." and St. Isidore, "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." Therefore, there can be no dispute about the doctrine itself to us Catholics, nor does the Church ask the Orthodox to profess anything other than what these Fathers professed.

As for the issue of the addition in the Creed, Rome never insisted, even at Florence, when Latins and Greeks confessed together the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son", that the Greeks add the Filioque to their Creed. Filioque was added in the West to deal with local heresies, only those who had slighted the dignity of Christ in the West had historically tried to throw doubt on the Spirit's procession from the Son and it was dogmatically defined in order to anathematize them. Those who denied the doctrine of the Filioque also denied that the Holy Ghost is from the Father and through the Son, though this was professed by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II. The formula used by St. Tarasius was discarded by Photius and others among the Greeks, as Church historian Philip Schaff records, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).

Kyrillios, the Latin West and the Greek East do not understand terms like cause and principle in the same way. Give me a common dogmatic definition of these terms, otherwise it will not be possible to have a common understanding of what is defined. Theological terms like cause are meant to explain the defined doctrine. We say the Father is cause of the Son and Spirit, whereas the Father gives to the Son by generation that the Spirit should proceed from Him as well. St. Cyril says, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." By the Son being cause do you mean that the Son has from the Father as "proper to His Person that the Spirit should be in and from Him", or do you mean something else? Define what you mean by "cause" precisely, for what St. Cyril says is what we mean, but I think we do not mean by cause the same thing you do.

Well, like I said before still goes......Im fine without the unauthorized addition.  I will stick with St. Mark EofE
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on April 18, 2015, 01:09:13 AM
Christus resurrexit!
Yes, Joe, I am happy and would be happy if all Christians professed together the dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father and through the Son, as St. Leo III and St. Tarasius have done. Before we come to discipline, we must settle the doctrine. Is the doctrine of the Filioque true?
No.
For centuries before 1054 A.D. and the controversies between Rome and Caerularius, or even 860-880 and those with Photius, the Church of Rome had dogmatically professed as a confession of Catholic Faith necessary for salvation, "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; not made, not begotten, but proceeding", St. Fulgentius says "Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the same Holy Spirit, the One Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son. That He proceeds also from the Son is supported by the teaching both of Prophets and Apostles." and St. Isidore, "The Holy Spirit is called God because He proceeds from the Father and the Son and has Their essence ... There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." Therefore, there can be no dispute about the doctrine itself to us Catholics, nor does the Church ask the Orthodox to profess anything other than what these Fathers professed.
IOW instead of learning from their mistakes, repeating them. We Catholics can't do that.

Two brothers, natives of the homeland of the filioque heresy. Not much to recommend it to our Catholic Church.

Btw, the filioque requires that the Spirit both is begotten and proceeds. A manifest heresy.
As for the issue of the addition in the Creed, Rome never insisted, even at Florence, when Latins and Greeks confessed together the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father and the Son" and "from the Father through the Son", that the Greeks add the Filioque to their Creed.
The Vatican sent its envoy to insist that we "put it back" in 1054.
Filioque was added in the West to deal with local heresies, only those who had slighted the dignity of Christ in the West had historically tried to throw doubt on the Spirit's procession from the Son and it was dogmatically defined in order to anathematize them.
the Arians had no problem attributing the Spirit's origin to the Son.
Those who denied the doctrine of the Filioque also denied that the Holy Ghost is from the Father and through the Son, though this was professed by St. Tarasius at Nicaea II. The formula used by St. Tarasius was discarded by Photius and others among the Greeks, as Church historian Philip Schaff records, "Photius and the later Eastern controversialists dropped or rejected the per Filium, as being nearly equivalent to ex Filio or Filioque, or understood it as being applicable only to the mission of the Spirit, and emphasized the exclusiveness of the procession from the Father" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume IV, §108).
I'm always amused by the vestiges of the Vatican in your Protestant siblings.
Kyrillios, the Latin West and the Greek East do not understand terms like cause and principle in the same way. Give me a common dogmatic definition of these terms, otherwise it will not be possible to have a common understanding of what is defined. Theological terms like cause are meant to explain the defined doctrine. We say the Father is cause of the Son and Spirit, whereas the Father gives to the Son by generation that the Spirit should proceed from Him as well. St. Cyril says, "in that the Son is God, and from God according to nature (for He has had His birth from God the Father), the Spirit is both proper to Him and in Him and from Him, just as, to be sure, the same thing is understood to hold true in the case of God the Father Himself." By the Son being cause do you mean that the Son has from the Father as "proper to His Person that the Spirit should be in and from Him", or do you mean something else? Define what you mean by "cause" precisely, for what St. Cyril says is what we mean, but I think we do not mean by cause the same thing you do.
Pope St. Cyril meant the same as we do, not as Latin dogmatics have muddled. St. Augustine had the humility to admit that the answers were in the Greek books, but that he could not understand as he didn't speak Greek.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on April 18, 2015, 01:22:42 AM
"From the Father through the Son" does not make the Son an origin and cause of the Holy Spirit.

Give simple answer:  Do you confess according to Florence and Lyons that the Son is a secondary (not principle) and mediate (not immediate) origin and cause of the Holy Spirit?

The position of Florence and Lyons is that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as from one principle.

Bingo, and that is where the real trouble begins, because even if it were true that the Son's relation to the Holy Spirit were causal, the consistent preference for the preposition "through" over the preposition "from" in the Greek Fathers would indicate that the Son's manner of causation is somehow secondary to the Father's manner of being cause (with respect to the Holy Spirit). This proposition is particularly troublesome, which is why the Latins quickly rejected that idea as a valid articulation for the Filioque (see the Summa, for example), as it implies a true double spiration from two principles. This is why the major disagreement between the East and West, which in my opinion, cannot simply be glossed over, is if the Church fathers in their multiple formulations to try to articulate the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit (ex Patre Filioque procedit, δια του Υιου εκπορευεται, εκ του Υιου προεισι, κτλ.), meant to assign to the son the same power of spiration and causation as the Father. The Late Medieval Greeks consistently interpreted the Fathers as meaning a non-causal relationship (see Gregory Palamas or the Tomos of Blachernae), whereas their Latin contemporaries at Lyons and Floremce dogmatically confessed the opposite.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 18, 2015, 06:48:50 AM
As from one principle, meaning from two sources (principally from the Father and secondarily from the Son), but simultaneously as from one principle.

Florence and Lyons indeed professed two origins and causes (principal and secondary causes) in the Godhead.

The Holy Orthodox Church, confessing the Faith Unchanged, condemns this heresy and innovation.

Ecclesiae Locuta Est.
Causa Finita Est.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Xavier on April 18, 2015, 08:03:56 AM
I'm amused that some Orthodox here recognize "from the Father through the Son" as doctrine and dogma, as indeed it is, while others deny and condemn it as a heresy. How can this be and who is right among yourselves?

Iconodule, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, as St. Tarasius and with him many Greek Orthodox confess, then it is correct and necessary to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds as from one principle and by a single spiration and not from two principles or a dual spiration.

Kyrillios, I asked you to give a precise definition of cause agreed upon in East and West and applicable to the Godhead, can you please answer that? God alone is the cause of His Word and His Spirit, i.e. the Father is cause of the Son and the Holy Ghost if by cause you mean unoriginate source of divinity. The Father is the principle without principle, in Greek πηγή and αἰτία. But if by saying the Son is not cause, you mean in any way to deny that the Holy Ghost receives His eternal subsistence in hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son both, then you would be wrong. St. Maximus says, ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten (δι’ Υιου γεννηθεντος)."

Iamistry, to establish the doctrine of the Filioque briefly, here are three Popes and three Fathers - St. Leo the Great, there is "One Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from Both", St. Gregory the Great, "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son." Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity."

St. Ambrose, "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.", St. Athanasius, ""David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the font of the Holy Spirit." and finally you claim St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, for a view excluding substantial procession, but you are mistaken, the illustrious Doctor wrote, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."

To omit other Scriptural proofs in light of this Tradition, we will consider three quick ones. First, St. John the Apostle says, "And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb." (the word used is derived from εκπόρευσις) and St. Ambrose comments, "This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says ... But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit.", second, as we saw above, St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius and the other Fathers say the Spirit is signified as Life in the sacred writings, and so when the Son of God says, "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), He establishes what the Catholic Church teaches through so many Doctors, that in generating the Son, the Father gave to Him that the Spirit should be in Him and proceed from Him as well. And St. Augustine furnishes the third plain Scriptural demonstration that the Holy Ghost proceeds ontologically also from the Son, "The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 18, 2015, 10:31:51 AM
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Florence and Lyons had professed the Filioque clearly:  That the Son is a secondary cause and origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Church condemns and anathematizes the heresy of two origins and causes in the Godhead.  This remains forever unto the ages of ages.  Amen.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Iconodule on April 18, 2015, 11:13:51 AM
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Florence and Lyons had professed the Filioque clearly:  That the Son is a secondary cause and origin of the Holy Spirit.

Yes and no. Montenero did seem to informally introduce the concept of two causes but when Mark pressed him to clarify his terminology, that session came to an end and Mark grudgingly allowed the next session to skip that point. It seems Montenero realized the problems in his argument and did not make it again. The "as from one principle" clause was intended to assuage Orthodox objections to the idea that there are two causes or even two essences. The final dogmatic position of Florence (in Laetentur Caeli) is that the Holy Spirit is caused by the Father; however, the causation of the Spirit is also granted to the Son insofar as the Son has everything the Father does excluding Fatherhood. This position is of course problematic as it seems based on the unity of essence between Father and Son. Since the Spirit likewise shares that essence, why don't we say that the Spirit begets the Son? 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 18, 2015, 11:25:24 AM
The Son has everything that the Father has, except the Hypostasis of the Father.  And it is the Hypostasis of the Father that begets and spirates.

The Latins didn't and still do not understand Theology.  They think spirating is not the Hypostatic Essence of the Father, and that's why they pass this Hypostatic Essence to the Son.

Unity of Essence signifies Consubstantiality, not the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son (as secondary origin and cause).

Florence and Lyons had professed the heretical Filioque.  The Church has condemned it.  Amen.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Xavier on April 18, 2015, 12:18:58 PM
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians. You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth. The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed. The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers. St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity. The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago. Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 18, 2015, 01:16:02 PM
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians. You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth. The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed. The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers. St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity. The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago. Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.
Amen
The mystery of Faith!

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.Amen
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 18, 2015, 01:29:21 PM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 18, 2015, 01:30:49 PM
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?

Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians. You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth. The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed. The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers. St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity. The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago. Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.

The fact that you think Aquinas the "own father" of "the dissident Greeks" doesn't raise my hopes that you know what you're talking about otherwise.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 18, 2015, 01:48:48 PM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 18, 2015, 02:09:23 PM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

Many fundamental differences in theological understanding hiding behind "filioque."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 18, 2015, 02:15:59 PM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

Many fundamental differences in theological understanding hiding behind "filioque."

Between who?

I would like to think EO believe this too? The Father is the only one who has the property to beget yes? Hence "Father" ...
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 18, 2015, 02:20:38 PM
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 18, 2015, 02:39:17 PM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

But the claim above was that the Spirit needs to proceed from Father and Son in order to preserve the distinction of persons.  If the Spirit must come from the Father and the Son in order for that distinction to be preserved, how come the Son doesn't need to come from the Father and the Spirit?  "Begetter"/"begotten" would seem only to address the relationship between two of the persons, it says nothing about the third.  How is the third distinct from the second? 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Cavaradossi on April 18, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?
Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians.

Perhaps we have read different historians, but after Blachernae and the vindication of St. Gregory Palamas a few centuries after that, the belief of a purely temporal relationship between the Son and Spirit was no longer possible, as it had become an official point of doctrine that the Son eternally manifests the Spirit. That some previously thought otherwise should be of no consequence, since it is also true that some Latins historically seemed to teach a distinction between how the Spirit proceeds from the Father and how the Spirit proceeds from the Son (implying two principles). What needs to be addressed is the official position taken by both sides, as it is fallacious to argue against historical perspectives rather than actual points of doctrine. It might be fruitful to investigate why those ideas fell out of favor, but you should be careful not to pass historical positions which fell out of favor after a synodal ruling officially accepted a rival theory as being official positions of some confessional body.

You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

I find this somewhat tortuous, I must admit, this idea that cause must be carefully defined. Since at least the time of St. Basil the Great, cause in trinitarian theology has been understood to mean priority in a logical sense and (obviously) not in a temporal sense.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth.

Far better to point out that they were ignorant of Greek, and thus could not recognize the difference between verbs like εκπορευεσθαι, προιεναι, εκχειν, κτλ. The Latins were capable of good philosophical inquiry, but on this matter, they were mistaken, being impoverished from their lack of access to the Greek Fathers in the original Greek.

The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed.


The heretical Greeks, you mean, gobbled up the Latin party line, and received generous worldly accommodations for it (just look at Bessarion). But they were always few in number for the fact that they could convince so very few to abandon the doctrines of the Greek Fathers for the innovations of some late Medieval Latins.

The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers.

The Catholic Greeks you mean, confessed the truth, and held fast to the doctrine of the Fathers both East and West. It is telling, for example, that the only party which wished to make use of St. Maximus' letter to Marinus as the grounds for reconciliation at Florence was the Greek party. The Latins could not accept it, because their doctrines had become so alien to the doctrines of the Fathers.

St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity.

He asserted that, it is true, but that he demonstrated it to be true is far from self-evident. It could also very well be the case that two formulae are complimentary in the sense give by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus.

The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago.

Other saints, notably, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John of Damascus explicitly denied this, noting that the mode of origination differs between the two, which is why one mode is more properly called γεννηθηναι and the other εκπορευεσθαι. Unlike the Latins, the Greek Fathers did not regard the two as being perfect and indistinct processions (only distinguishable by their source), but as being the personal acts of one hypostasis (the Father) causing the others.

Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit

We agree so far.

and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.

And here we disagree. Firstly, Scripture has it from the mouth of the Lord himself that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Secondly, you then inaccurately have stated above that the Son has a relation to the Holy Spirit. That is manifestly false because in the Latin digmatic scheme of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as one principle, the Son only relates to the Spirit insofar as the Son forms a unity with the Father, which is to say that the Son does not truly have an eternal relationship with the Spirit, but rather that the Father and the Son have an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

This leads directly into Vladimir Lossky's criticism that the Filioque prevents there from being any absolute diversity of the trinitarian persons, because rather than yielding a triad which is also a monad in its relation to one cause, the Filioque yields two dyadic-monadic structures, a Father-Son dyad which collapses (because the dyad is inherently unstable) into a monad in its relation to the Holy Spirit, yielding yet another dyad, a (Father-Son)-Holy Spirit dyad (where the Father and the Son have fallen back into a monad, relating to the Holy Spirit not personally but as an impersonal unity of persons). This dyad in turn collapses into another impersonal unity in the relation of the Trinity to creation. The Orthodox system, by contrast prevents this consequence by not positing opposition as the foundation of the absolute diversity of the divine persons, but rather by understanding that this is a consequence of their unique relations.

Thus the Father as Cause causes the Son and Holy Spirit by two distinct manners of origination (begetting and procession), while also establishing the foundation of the unique eternal relationship between the Spirit and the Son by bestowing the Spirit upon the Son from all eternity (as in the Augustinian analogy of the Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son). Hence the Son is uniquely anointed from all eternity and uniquely manifests the Holy Spirit, while the Spirit uniquely rests upon the Son. It is in this sense that we should understand how the Son has a role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, not as cause, for the Father alone communicates hypostatic being and divinity to the Holy Spirit, but as the eternally anointed Who from eternity does not keep His gift to Himself, but rather manifests it, such that by establishing from eternity the principles (logoi) which govern the creation which He foreknew, He determines the eternal ek-stasis of the Divinity, which is the eternal love of the Creator for His pre-existent creation and the eternal outpouring the the Holy Spirit as this divine love for His beloved creation.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on April 18, 2015, 03:02:34 PM
Christus resurrexit!
I'm amused that some Orthodox here recognize "from the Father through the Son" as doctrine and dogma, as indeed it is, while others deny and condemn it as a heresy. How can this be and who is right among yourselves?
It is amusing to watch Vaticanistas try splitting. Must be an outgrowth of Scholastic hairsplitting.

There are followers of the Vatican who recognize from the Father and Son as doctrine and dogma, as indeed it is for the Vatican, while others (such as its Eastern submitters and some of its modern Ecumenically minded apologists) deny and condemn it as a heresy. Hence the rift among its followers on the status of EP St. Photios the Great.

Supposedly your supreme pontiff could say how this can be and who is right, but he doesn't talk much. And they disagree among themselves, Pope Leo III saying filioque should not be interpolated, er, inserted in the Creed, Pope Benedict VIII stuck it in when his imperial patron demanded it-so much for Caesaropapism being a heresy in Old Rome-and Pope Leo IX demanded we stick it "back" in.
Iconodule, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, as St. Tarasius and with him many Greek Orthodox confess, then it is correct and necessary to say that the Holy Ghost proceeds as from one principle and by a single spiration and not from two principles or a dual spiration.
Not if you use Christ's own statement of the Gospel Truth.
Kyrillios, I asked you to give a precise definition of cause agreed upon in East and West and applicable to the Godhead, can you please answer that? God alone is the cause of His Word and His Spirit, i.e. the Father is cause of the Son and the Holy Ghost if by cause you mean unoriginate source of divinity. The Father is the principle without principle, in Greek πηγή and αἰτία. But if by saying the Son is not cause, you mean in any way to deny that the Holy Ghost receives His eternal subsistence in hypostatic procession from the Father and the Son both, then you would be wrong. St. Maximus says, ""By nature (ϕυσει) the Holy Spirit in His being (κατ’ ουσιαν) takes substantially (ουσιοδως) His origin (εκπορευομενον) from the Father through the Son Who is begotten (δι’ Υιου γεννηθεντος)."
Only if you understand St. Maximos as believing His hypostatic procession from the Son was begotten from the Father, and detoured through the Son.
Iamistry, to establish the doctrine of the Filioque briefly, here are three Popes and three Fathers - St. Leo the Great, there is "One Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from Both", St. Gregory the Great, "The Spirit proceeds essentially from the Son." Pope St. Hormisdas, "characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity."
and to establish the Truth of the matter, here is the 150 Fathers in Ecumenical Council proclaiming the word of Christ: "proceeds from the Father." Period.

Just for amusement, show us how Archbishops (Old Rome hadn't taken the old Alexandrian title of Pope yet) SS. Leo the Great, Hormisdas and Gregory the Great (to put them in correct chronological order) spoke "ex cathedra" in any of these attributed statements.

St. Ambrose, "The Holy Spirit also, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father nor separated from the Son. For how could He be separated from the Father Who is the Spirit of His mouth? Which is certainly both a proof of His eternity, and expresses the Unity of this Godhead.", St. Athanasius, ""David sings in the psalm [35:10], saying: 'For with You is the font of Life;'because jointly with the Father the Son is indeed the font of the Holy Spirit." and finally you claim St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, for a view excluding substantial procession, but you are mistaken, the illustrious Doctor wrote, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."
sorry, Scholastic sophistry doesn't work as well in Greek as it does in Latin (I'll leave aside the issue of interpolated texts, like the Filioque).
To omit other Scriptural proofs in light of this Tradition

only Scriptural spoof-texts are darkened by this tradition (small t. like all heresies).
we will consider three quick ones. First, St. John the Apostle says, "And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb." (the word used is derived from εκπόρευσις) and St. Ambrose comments, "This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says ... But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit.", second, as we saw above, St. Ambrose, St. Athanasius and the other Fathers say the Spirit is signified as Life in the sacred writings, and so when the Son of God says, "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), He establishes what the Catholic Church teaches through so many Doctors, that in generating the Son, the Father gave to Him that the Spirit should be in Him and proceed from Him as well. And St. Augustine furnishes the third plain Scriptural demonstration that the Holy Ghost proceeds ontologically also from the Son, "The Father begot a Son and, by begetting Him, gave it to Him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him as well. If He did not proceed from Him, He would not say to His disciples, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [Jn 20:22], and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Him and showed outwardly by blowing what He was giving inwardly by breathing."
it is so cute when Latin speakers interpret Greek texts they don't understand.

Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on April 18, 2015, 03:06:17 PM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
but since you try to justify your filioque on the fact that the Son has all that the Father has, that would include the procession (which indeed you are claiming), which He could only receive from the Father through begetting.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 18, 2015, 05:20:20 PM
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.

He is not being limited. It is accurate identification of his person, not of his being. That is why is he called the father? Because he begets the Son. That's the reason he is called the Father. Why is the Son called the Son? Because he is begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is so called because he is the Spirit of the Father and Son, proceeding from them both equally as from one principle through one spiration.

The Persons are distinguished by relations to one another. The Son is everything then Father is Except being the Father for he is Begotten of the Father. That is the only difference between them. Since  the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father (John 16:15), except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (Apocalypse 22:1,Romans 8:9, John 15:26, Galatians 4:6).
 
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 18, 2015, 05:21:48 PM
Duplicate
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 18, 2015, 05:34:59 PM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
but since you try to justify your filioque on the fact that the Son has all that the Father has
John 16:15

Quote
that would include the procession (which indeed you are claiming)
Yes or Properly worded, that would include the giving of the Spirit of God which is manifested through procession. Thus the Spirit would proceed from the Son also as He is fully and equally the Spirit of the Son

Quote
which He could only receive from the Father through begetting.
If you mean by virtue of the Son being begotten of the Father
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 18, 2015, 05:35:23 PM
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.

He is not being limited. It is accurate identification of his person, not of his being. That is why is he called the father? Because he begets the Son.

And how is he called God? Again, you're dodging in a classically sophistical way, pairing rhetorical contingencies as tho they were answers.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 18, 2015, 05:36:43 PM
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.

He is not being limited. It is accurate identification of his person, not of his being. That is why is he called the father? Because he begets the Son.

And how is he called God? Again, you're dodging in a classically sophistical way, pairing rhetorical contingencies as tho they were answers.

I assume we are speaking of the Father... The Father ,simply put, is God in and of Himself as he is the principal without principal. The Father is first, the Son is second and the Holy Spirit is third. This is their order as taught by the fathers.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 18, 2015, 05:43:09 PM
And as God, the Father can be the source from with the Holy Spirit progresseth. No contradiction in terms here as you were pretending.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 18, 2015, 07:27:33 PM
Ialmisry denied it, and this means "there is conflicting opinion in Orthodoxy about from the Father through the Son"?

I shall not dignify that retarded stupidity with an answer.

The introduction of the Mystagogy tells us:

"...concerning the saying that because He is of one essence with the Son, He therefore proceeds from Him as well."

The Mystagogy isn't addressing "from the Father through the Son" which is Orthodox.  It addresses the heresy that the Son is also a (secondary) cause and origin of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is One Essence with the Son, this denotes Consubstantiality.  I can't comprehend how this simple statement is connected to the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as an origin and cause.  Consubstantiality and Hypostatic relations are two different things.

From this reasoning, since the Son is One Essence with the Holy Spirit (for who can deny this?) therefore the Son should also be begotten from the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 18, 2015, 07:29:32 PM
To be the Father is to beget and to spirate.

To be the Son is to be begotten.

To be the Holy Spirit is to proceed.

But you are saying that to be the Father is to beget and to principally spirate.  To be the Son is to be begotten and to secondarily spirate.  To be the Holy Spirit is to proceed principally from the Father and secondarily from the Son.

And thus you divide the Person of the Father (into principal and secondary), confound the Person of the Son (mingling spirating with being begotten in the Son) and makes the Holy Spirit composite (proceeding from two sources).

Because what is called principal is distinct from what is secondary.  They are not one and identical cause, but two distinct causes.  And that is why in order to maintain this position, Florence and Lyons said "as from one" and not "from one".

This is the heresy of two origins and causes in the Godhead.  The Church condemns this.  Period.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Kyrillios Anthonios on April 18, 2015, 07:40:21 PM
The Son has all that the Father has, except being the Father.  Which is to say, except for begetting and spirating.  The Son is begotten and does not beget and does not spirate.

And the Son has all that the Holy Spirit has, except for being the Holy Spirit.  Which is to say, except for proceeding.  The Son is begotten and does not proceed.

The Holy Spirit likewise has all that the Father and the Son has, except being the Father and the Son.  Which is to say, except for begetting and spirating, and being begotten.  The Holy Spirit does not beget and does not spirate, and is not begotten.

The Father has all that the Son and the Holy Spirit has, except for being the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Which is to say, except for being begotten and proceeding.  The Father begets and spirates and is not begotten and does not proceed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 18, 2015, 07:43:44 PM
I see all sorts of elegant and symmetrical arguments emerging from the Church and the Greeks on this, while from the Latin side I see something like "We put out a statement and dare someone to speak up." Some of Ambrose particularly is bothering me in this thread as having almost a childish bullying nature.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on April 18, 2015, 08:38:53 PM
Christus resurrexit!
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
but since you try to justify your filioque on the fact that the Son has all that the Father has
John 16:15
on point only if you think the Spirit is an "it"/"thing."
Quote
that would include the procession (which indeed you are claiming)
Yes or Properly worded, that would include the giving of the Spirit of God which is manifested through procession. Thus the Spirit would proceed from the Son also as He is fully and equally the Spirit of the Son

Quote
which He could only receive from the Father through begetting.
If you mean by virtue of the Son being begotten of the Father
so the Spirit is begotten of the Father through the Son.

LOL. Proper wording of an improper word.

I mean? I reject the meaningless filioque. Or does heresy have meaning?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on April 18, 2015, 11:18:43 PM
Catholics, if you are happy with the 'filioque' KEEP IT.

As for us we will go on as always with the original version.   Give me a break already.  We don't need you.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Xavier on April 19, 2015, 12:03:26 AM
Well, Porter, I mentioned St. Thomas in response to the claim that the Latins' don't understand theology, obviously I know the Greek Orthodox don't agree with him. In Against the Errors of the Greeks and Summa Theologica where he treats of the Spirit's procession, the Angelic Doctor developed a sophisticated refutation of those who denied all eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit, which has not really been addressed by those who still maintain that opinion. Anyway, to those who think this originates from St. Thomas on the Latin side, St. Isidore had said long ago essentially what St. Thomas said, "There is, however, this difference between generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both." ("Hoc autem interest inter nascentem Filium et procedentum Spiritum sanctum, quod Filius ex uno nascitur; Spiritus sanctus ex utroque procedit.") The Latin Church has always believed and professed the Spirit proceeds from Both as from One, therefore by a single spiration and by one procession. Even St. Eucherius of Lyons says, "The Holy Spirit is neither generate nor ingenerate, but rather is He who proceeds from the Father and the Son, as a harmony, we may say, of Both."

Cavaradossi, difference and nuance of language is a legitimate point, owing to which divisions can arise. First, I would ask you, how you understand the phrase in Scripture, "I saw a river of the water of life, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Rev 22:1). The Greek word in the passage is from ekporeusis, just as in St. Jn 15:26. The internal evidence of Scripture itself suggests this river of the water of life is the holy Ghost (e.g. Jn 7:38-39) since the Holy Ghost is called living waters in the Gospels and the Prophets, the fountain of life in the Fathers, and finally St. Ambrose and others say this passage refers to the Holy Ghost. How would you understand it and how does it square with the claim that the Latins never understood the different usages of ekporeusis? In any case, Rome did not and does not insist the Greeks add the Filioque in the Creed in their own language, and St. Leo III was aware of this among other nuances, only that it cannot be denied that in Latin, it is unimpeachably unorthodox. In effectively identical words, it has been dogmatically confessed in the Latin West from ancient times.

Quote
Other saints, notably, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John of Damascus explicitly denied this, noting that the mode of origination differs between the two, which is why one mode is more properly called γεννηθηναι and the other εκπορευεσθαι. Unlike the Latins, the Greek Fathers did not regard the two as being perfect and indistinct processions (only distinguishable by their source), but as being the personal acts of one hypostasis (the Father) causing the others.

Let's look at St. John Damascene, would you agree with this excerpt from a modern study, "But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word"

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

If not wishing to use ekporeusis to describe the Spirit's eternal relationship to the Son, you wish to say the Spirit reposes in the Word and flows from Him, or that He is in the Word and manifested through Him,  or even that His spiration is by and through the Word, as the Greek Fathers did above, there will be no fundamental disagreement between Latin and Greek Traditions. Disagreement comes when this eternal relationship is closed out.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 19, 2015, 12:06:21 AM
As fine as you've started to cut this, Xavier, why would you want to see reference to it in the very Symbol of Faith? That's no place for rarified contemplation on could-be-true-if-you-look-at-it-just-like-this.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Xavier on April 19, 2015, 12:09:33 AM
Quote
the Son only relates to the Spirit insofar as the Son forms a unity with the Father, which is to say that the Son does not truly have an eternal relationship with the Spirit, but rather that the Father and the Son have an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Lossky's criticism of "one principle" says it precludes the Son having as proper to His own Person (having received this in generation from the Father) an eternal relationship with the Spirit and reduces to a Dyad within the Trinity. We say Father and Son are one principle of the Spirit as sunlight is one principle of heat. The Spirit does not flow from the essence as such, but from the two Persons as distinct, from the Father as the Love of the Father is in Himself, from the Son as the Love of the Father is in the beloved Son from eternity, an analogy you admit, as did Gregory Palamas. St. Thomas says, "the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both. " Of course, any natural analogy is insufficient to express the Trinitarian mystery, but it is necessary not to preclude the role of the Son in the eternal spiration of the Holy Ghost from the Father. Gregory Palamas says, "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him from the Father and reposing connaturally in him"

Kyrillios, so, you are saying the Son does not receive spiration of the Spirit as a personal property. The Son is excluded from the eternal spiration of the Spirit? No, the Father communicates to the Son that He may spirate the Spirit also, Holy Scripture speaks of this signifying the Spirit as Life, "As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son that He may also have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), as we understand from Tradition, from St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose etc. that the Spirit is signified as Life in Holy Writ.

Ialmisry, if you want attributions for the above, they are as follows - Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga, St. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92, Pope St. Hormisdas Profession of Faith, 517 A.D. St. Ambrose On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120, St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9, St. Cyril On Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1. Some of these are dogmatic professions, others are teaching documents, others are the Fathers engaged in theological reasoning. How can one accuse the Filioque of being heretical? Please address this passage in particular from St. Cyril, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."

From the study in the link above,

"What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6) ... The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love ... This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: JoeS2 on April 19, 2015, 12:20:21 AM
Quote
the Son only relates to the Spirit insofar as the Son forms a unity with the Father, which is to say that the Son does not truly have an eternal relationship with the Spirit, but rather that the Father and the Son have an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Lossky's criticism of "one principle" says it precludes the Son having as proper to His own Person (having received this in generation from the Father) an eternal relationship with the Spirit and reduces to a Dyad within the Trinity. We say Father and Son are one principle of the Spirit as sunlight is one principle of heat. The Spirit does not flow from the essence as such, but from the two Persons as distinct, from the Father as the Love of the Father is in Himself, from the Son as the Love of the Father is in the beloved Son from eternity, an analogy you admit, as did Gregory Palamas. St. Thomas says, "the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, as distinct; for He proceeds from them as the unitive love of both. " Of course, any natural analogy is insufficient to express the Trinitarian mystery, but it is necessary not to preclude the role of the Son in the eternal spiration of the Holy Ghost from the Father. Gregory Palamas says, "The Spirit of the most high Word is like an ineffable love of the Father for this Word ineffably generated. A love which this same Word and beloved Son of the Father entertains towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him from the Father and reposing connaturally in him"

Kyrillios, so, you are saying the Son does not receive spiration of the Spirit as a personal property. The Son is excluded from the eternal spiration of the Spirit? No, the Father communicates to the Son that He may spirate the Spirit also, Holy Scripture speaks of this signifying the Spirit as Life, "As the Father has life in Himself, so He gave to the Son that He may also have life in Himself" (Jn 5:26), as we understand from Tradition, from St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose etc. that the Spirit is signified as Life in Holy Writ.

Ialmisry, if you want attributions for the above, they are as follows - Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 15:2 to Bishop St. Turibius of Astorga, St. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 2:56:92, Pope St. Hormisdas Profession of Faith, 517 A.D. St. Ambrose On The Holy Spirit 1:11:120, St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word Against the Arians 9, St. Cyril On Worship and Adoration in Spirit and Truth 1. Some of these are dogmatic professions, others are teaching documents, others are the Fathers engaged in theological reasoning. How can one accuse the Filioque of being heretical? Please address this passage in particular from St. Cyril, "the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son."

From the study in the link above,

"What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6) ... The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love ... This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son."

Why don't you get it? We don't need the Filioque. End of argument.  I'm ok with you keeping the Filioque. Why are you not happy?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on April 19, 2015, 12:38:16 AM
Christus resurrexit!
Ialmisry, if you want attributions for the above, they are as follows...
I'm about to go to bed, but Lord willing will return to it. In the meantime answer what I did ask for in the above:
Just for amusement, show us how Archbishops (Old Rome hadn't taken the old Alexandrian title of Pope yet) SS. Leo the Great, Hormisdas and Gregory the Great (to put them in correct chronological order) spoke "ex cathedra" in any of these attributed statements.
How can one accuse the Filioque of being heretical?
Easy, because it is.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: ialmisry on April 19, 2015, 12:54:49 AM
Christus resurrexit.
Let's look at St. John Damascene, would you agree with this excerpt from a modern study, "But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word"

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

If not wishing to use ekporeusis to describe the Spirit's eternal relationship to the Son, you wish to say the Spirit reposes in the Word and flows from Him, or that He is in the Word and manifested through Him,  or even that His spiration is by and through the Word, as the Greek Fathers did above, there will be no fundamental disagreement between Latin and Greek Traditions. Disagreement comes when this eternal relationship is closed out.
why not listen to what St. John himself says "we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause."
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 19, 2015, 02:38:30 AM
And as God, the Father can be the source from with the Holy Spirit progresseth. No contradiction in terms here as you were pretending.

But now I'm confused  :-\ what are you going on about?

Yes even in Catholic theology the Father is The ultimate origin of the Spirit. Who here denied this?
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Porter ODoran on April 19, 2015, 02:47:31 AM
Confused yourself with your convolutions, then. Take your time rereading the thread.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 19, 2015, 03:22:22 AM
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

But the claim above was that the Spirit needs to proceed from Father and Son in order to preserve the distinction of persons.
Yes so that the Son and Holy Spirit are not confused lest we teach modalism

Quote
  If the Spirit must come from the Father and the Son in order for that distinction to be preserved, how come the Son doesn't need to come from the Father and the Spirit?
Because we must also preserve the natural properties of persons as tradition teaches us about each of them. That is; this principle of necessity of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is guided by a grander principle  : The things proper to each person which make then who they are. The father is the father because the son is begotten of him. Not because the spirit proceeds from him. What you advocate (Father and Spirit both begetting) ignores this principle and ends up in modalism. The Son is only begotten of the father in both ways... That he is the only son of the father and that the father is the only one who begets him so scripture has taught us.

 
Quote
"Begetter"/"begotten" would seem only to address the relationship between two of the persons, it says nothing about the third.  How is the third distinct from the second?

It is about the two persons and is exclusive to them because the Son is testified to be from the Father alone. The third person is addressed by this way : See it is necessary in the sense that the Son proceeds (goes forth) from the father alone. If the Spirit too has this relation then the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused thus it is necessary that the Spirit also proceed from the son.

One of the eastern fathers (slips my mind as to who) was rigorist ,and pretty much an early Photian,  said that how the Son and the Spirit are different in their relations, we cannot speculate. This is the result of excluding the son from the procession. Material admission of Semi modalism. Luckily most of the fathers taught different on this issue as Aquinas showed.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 19, 2015, 03:23:14 AM
Confused yourself with your convolutions, then. Take your time rereading the thread.

No you're not making any sense, that's why I'm confused. If you make a charge be man enough to back it up.

You conclude with a statement that we both believe and somehow proclaim
Quote
No contradiction in terms here as you were pretending

Who here said these are contradictory???

All I said from the onset was that the Father is called the Father because he begets the son. He is not called the father because the spirit proceeds from him. The latter is the reason (compounded with the first) why the Father is the principal without principal.
Title: Re: Keep the Filioque
Post by: Wandile on April 19, 2015, 03:49:10 AM
Christus resurrexit!
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.
but since you try to justify your filioque on the fact that the Son has all that the Father has
John 16:15
on point only if you think the Spirit is an "it"/"thing."
Grammatically, persons are things in the truest sense of the word :-\

Quote
Quote
that would include the procession (which indeed you are claiming)
Yes or Properly worded, that would include the giving of the Spirit of God which is manifested through procession. Thus the Spirit would proceed from the Son also