OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: Xavier on June 24, 2019, 05:46:04 AM

Title: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on June 24, 2019, 05:46:04 AM
Catholic Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, an official representative of the Roman Church, authored a brief treatise on the Filioque. In it, among other points, he raises one that seems to be definitive. What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?

1. "Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, “The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is truth, and so he proceeds from him likewise as from the Father.” This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

Please see: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm for the complete text.

2. The letter of Patriarch St. Cyril that is being discussed is his third letter to Nestorius,"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father. The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him; for He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]"

Please read: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/st-cyrils-third-letter-to-nestorius/ for the full letter.

Thoughts? If St. Cyril and the Councils receive as perfectly orthodox the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father, isn't it certain that that doctrine cannot be erroneous? Patriarch St. Cyril tells us, as Christ is Truth, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ, as He does from God the Father. What can we understand from that?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Alpha60 on June 24, 2019, 07:10:24 AM
I don’t think St. Cyril is saying what you think he is saying.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on June 24, 2019, 08:40:06 AM
Xavier, I'm not trying to be mean but you're always starting new threads on the Filioque while many of the old threads remain open ended.  We are going in circles on this subject and it will never be resolved.  You are wasting your time.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on June 24, 2019, 12:12:10 PM
See the 12 anathemas of St. Cyril against the Nestorian Christological heresy.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: noahzarc1 on June 24, 2019, 01:26:23 PM
Robert Bellarmine is like every other theologian in that later arguments pick and choose from those doctors or saints what ever they want in order to make a point. The Sedevacantists love him because they find in his writings that a heretical pope is ipso facto deposed without any sentence and he thus falls from the papacy. It is how they excuse themselves into sedevacantism. Same here, you can twist and turn Bellarmine how you'd like. The fact of the matter is that he lived 1200+ years after the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople and nearly 500 years into the schism of east and west. As a major theologian for Rome in the Counter Reformation, I doubt he would be a Doctor of the Church if he came along writing, preaching and proclaiming anything against Rome's stance on the Filioque. The major focus of his ministry was to Protestants anyway and the focus of the letter was also against Valentinus Gentilis, a tritheist who was tried, condemned, and put to death in the Protestant reformed city of Switzerland, for asserting there were three divine persons of the Trinity as three distinct, eternal spirits.

As PorphyriosK pointed out you have a number of open and unresolved threads on the same topic.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: ialmisry on June 24, 2019, 10:58:57 PM
Catholic Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, an official representative of the Roman Church, authored a brief treatise on the Filioque. In it, among other points, he raises one that seems to be definitive. What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?

1. "Omitting these things, then, let us bring forward the Councils that testify the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. First the Council celebrated at Alexandria, from which Council Cyril writes a letter to Nestorius in which are these words, “The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth, and Christ is truth, and so he proceeds from him likewise as from the Father.” This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

Please see: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/procession.htm for the complete text.

2. The letter of Patriarch St. Cyril that is being discussed is his third letter to Nestorius,"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father. The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him; for He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]"

Please read: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/st-cyrils-third-letter-to-nestorius/ for the full letter.

Thoughts? If St. Cyril and the Councils receive as perfectly orthodox the teaching that the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as from the Father, isn't it certain that that doctrine cannot be erroneous? Patriarch St. Cyril tells us, as Christ is Truth, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ, as He does from God the Father. What can we understand from that?
Don't have the time now to go through all this repetitive c****, but
1) It's POPE Cyril.
2) Christ said "from the Father." Even if Pope St. Cyril said what you are claiming, who (or rather, Who) knows better?
3) The Holy Theotokos could not receive the Son if He were not the Spirit's-hence "incarnate of the Holy Spirit"
4) That the Councils accepted Pope St. Cyril's teaching as Orthodox, that says NOTHING about your misunderstanding thereof.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on June 25, 2019, 02:59:29 PM
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.


Quote
"For even though the Spirit exist in His Own Person, and is conceived of by Himself, inasmuch as He is the Spirit and not the Son, yet is He not therefore alien from Him; for He is called the Spirit of truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father. The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him; for He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]"

What an amazing quote that puts everything in context, clearly the procession that is being spoken of is economia or the temporal mission of the Spirit. Just like Revelation 22:1, where the procession is occurring in time, after the creation of the world, therefor not hypostatic origin proof.

In the creed, the saying "proceeds from the Father" is direct quote from the Gospel of John 15:26, where a distinction is made between hypostatic origin and mission, this is why you cannot change this and add the filioque. You are changing the gospel and causing confusion.

This letter was read in the Council of Ephesus and was approved both by the Council of Ephesus itself and by the fourth Synod, and by the fifth Synod and by the sixth and seventh Synods.

We have therefore five general Councils celebrated among the Greeks which receive the most open and clear opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as from the Father. What then do they now seek? What do they demand?"

Please read: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/st-cyrils-third-letter-to-nestorius/ for the full letter.
Cool, look what i found:

according to the ordinance set forth in the Letters of the afore-mentioned most holy and most pious Bishop and our co-minister of the church of the Romans, Celestine.......for this very thing thou hast notified in the Letter written by thee to our most holy brother-bishop of Great Rome, Celestine.


or this

...And verily Peter and John were of equal honour one with another, in that they were both Apostles and holy disciples...

Apparently the pope is not a minister of ministers but only a co-minister. Not a father of bishops but only a brother to them, how many councils you said confirm this ?



Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on June 26, 2019, 07:37:03 AM
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.

Please let this be trolling.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on June 26, 2019, 07:43:02 AM
Alpha, ok. What do you think St. Cyril is saying, then?

Porphyriosk, I don't think you're being mean, but I don't think there's been a thread on Filioque in the first page here, i.e. the last 3 months.

Ialmisry, I don't know and don't want to know what swear word you're trying to use, but Christians shouldn't swear at all imo. Anyway, the answer to your question, "Even if Pope St. Cyril said what you are claiming, who (or rather, Who) knows better?" is: St. Cyril and the Church are giving us an authorized interpretation of John 15:26-27, and 16:13-15. Christ is the Truth, and the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father. Your own Church has interpreted the Gospel as "The Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is acknowledged to be Himself God" in Nicaea II. Our Latin Fathers teach us very clearly, Jesus sometimes even says the doctrine He brings not His own; He says such things in humility, because He was in the flesh. But what He means is that it comes from His Father through Him. In the same way, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose teach us, as St. Cyril and St. Tarasius have taught you, that the Holy Spirit, Who is Himself God, proceeds from Father through Son.

Vanhyo, the text of St. Cyril is saying that the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. Let's look at the letter more closely.

1. St. Cyril: "For though the Spirit exist in His Own Person ... He is called the Spirit of Truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father". Who proceeds from Whom? The Person of the Spirit from the Son, as from the Father.

2. St. Cyril: "He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]" St. Cyril shows, the Son of God is God by Nature, in that the Father has given to His Son His [the Father's] Spirit as His [Christ's] Own Spirit. This is how the Spirit "receives" of Christ's.

[Your own Ancient Eastern Liturgies also bear witness to this fact, "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." (The Liturgy of Patriarch St. Mark of Alexandria: Link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0718.htm)), what does it mean to say the Father and the Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit? It means the One Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally unites Them Both, because He is the Spirit of Both, and Proceeds from the Father through the Son in the Eternal Unity of the Holy Trinity.

This is why our Latin Fathers teach us that it is a holy dogma to be believed by all, "St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526 – Feast Day Jan. 3rd) writes: “Believe most firmly , and never doubt, 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” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)" Link (https://erickybarra.org/2017/10/14/filioque-in-the-west/)

3. St. Cyril: "The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him" The Spirit indeed glorified Jesus by working through the Holy Apostles, but God on earth bore witness to the Truth through His Own Spirit. That is the difference between Jesus and His Apostles. Your opinion would make Jesus no less than any glorified man, an opinion close to Nestorianism. St. Cyril was writing this to Nestorius, and, as St. Robert shows, Theodoret also held a wrong opinion on the matter. To Nestorius and Nestorians, Jesus was just a man in whom God dwelt in some special way. Thus, they could not admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, just as He proceeds from the Father. This is why Theodoret issued his "counter-anathema" to St. Cyril, "But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious." But the Church anathematized later this 9th counter-anathema of Theodoret.

Papal Presidency is not the subject here, but since you brought it up, this statement can be clearly read in the letter on the Orthodox joint commission website: "Lo then together with the holy Synod that has been gathered together in Great Rome, under the presidency of the Most holy and Most devout our brother and co-minister the Bishop Celestine, we do testify to thee in this third Letter too"Link (https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/st-cyrils-third-letter-to-nestorius/) Examine the matter a little further, and you'll see St. Cyril had requested St. Celestine to intervene, and St. Celestine had delegated authority to excommunicate Nestorius to St. Cyril; just as, for e.g., the canons of Sardica under St. Athanasius had stipulated the Pope of Rome would do in such cases.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Apotheoun on June 26, 2019, 09:08:24 PM
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on June 26, 2019, 09:50:50 PM

Porphyriosk, I don't think you're being mean, but I don't think there's been a thread on Filioque in the first page here, i.e. the last 3 months.


Yes Xavier we've actually had quite an in depth discussion on the Filioque over the course of this month.  This is the thread, started on June 4th:

"Lost and Need Help" by knish:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,76363.0.html
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on June 27, 2019, 01:54:15 PM
Quote
Papal Presidencysupremacy is not the subject here,
Indirectly it is, if your foundational belief that St Peter was the head of the apostles is not true then this in turn invalidates all your other claims. The letter clearly states St Peter to be equal apostle in honor to St John.

Quote
but since you brought it up, this statement can be clearly read in the letter on the Orthodox joint commission website: "Lo then together with the holy Synod that has been gathered together in Great Rome, under the presidency of the Most holy and Most devout our brother and co-minister the Bishop Celestine, we do testify to thee in this third Letter too"Link Examine the matter a little further, and you'll see St. Cyril had requested St. Celestine to intervene, and St. Celestine had delegated authority to excommunicate Nestorius to St. Cyril; just as, for e.g., the canons of Sardica under St. Athanasius had stipulated the Pope of Rome would do in such cases.

The Synod of Jerusalem was under the presidency of St James the Just, the synod of Rome was under the presidency of the Pope, your point ? Appeals are always send to the first seat, and at the time Rome had an honorary position because of the martyrdom of Sts Peter and Paul in there and because it was the imperial city, not because St Peter was a super-apostle and head of the twelve as shown by the letter you kindly provided he was regarded by other bishops are brother, co-minister not as father of bishops.



Quote
[Your own Ancient Eastern Liturgies also bear witness to this fact, "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." (The Liturgy of Patriarch St. Mark of Alexandria: Link), what does it mean to say the Father and the Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit? It means the One Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally unites Them Both, because He is the Spirit of Both, and Proceeds from the Father through the Son in the Eternal Unity of the Holy Trinity.
Your conclusion is ridiculous. You are not a trinitarian. The Holy Trinity is not two persons and a glue.

It says this:
The People.

Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy.

The Priest (aloud).

Holy things for the holy.

The People.

One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Deacon.

For salvation and help.

What you should understand by this is the following: One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, (we the Church sing/say this) in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Quote
This is why our Latin Fathers teach us that it is a holy dogma to be believed by all, "St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+526 – Feast Day Jan. 3rd) writes: “Believe most firmly , and never doubt, 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” (De Fide 11, Patrologia Latina 65.695). And: “The Holy Spirit is wholly the Father’s and wholly the Son’s, because He is by nature the One Spirit of the Father and the Son; for which cause He proceeds wholly from the Father and the Son, and abides wholly in the Father and the Son; for He so abides as to proceed, and so proceeds as to abide” (Epistle 14, Migne 418)" Link
A forgery ? A mistranslation ? Or plain heresy ? Who knows ? I am telling you, the natural conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass.


Quote
3. St. Cyril: "The Spirit therefore working miracles by the hand too of the holy Apostles after that our Lord Jesus Christ had gone up into Heaven, glorified Him" The Spirit indeed glorified Jesus by working through the Holy Apostles, but God on earth bore witness to the Truth through His Own Spirit. That is the difference between Jesus and His Apostles. Your opinion would make Jesus no less than any glorified man, an opinion close to Nestorianism. St. Cyril was writing this to Nestorius, and, as St. Robert shows, Theodoret also held a wrong opinion on the matter. To Nestorius and Nestorians, Jesus was just a man in whom God dwelt in some special way. Thus, they could not admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, just as He proceeds from the Father. This is why Theodoret issued his "counter-anathema" to St. Cyril, "But if he speaks of the Spirit as being of the Son, or as having its origin through the Son we shall reject this statement as blasphemous and impious." But the Church anathematized later this 9th counter-anathema of Theodoret.
I think you are confused here, you project that confusion on me and it leads you to false conclusion.  In your mind you have connected the procession of the Holy Spirit with the working of miracles and your conclusion is that unless the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Son, he cannot be a divine person but only a bearer.

This is a false cocadox belief. Both are not connected, Christ is a divine person who works miracles by his own power which is proper to His divine essence or in other words you are confusing power with person.
This is a very common mistake among papal adherers, they think that the Father-Son is the one essence and the Holy Spirit is the power of that essence. This is anti-trinitarian heresy, in orthodox theology, the Lord, the Holy Spirit is not the impersonal power of the Father-Son but essential divine person with will and power. Likewise, the Son works miracles not by another person but by His own power proper to the divine essence.


Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Katechon on June 27, 2019, 02:34:43 PM
Lol, is it still the point with hypostatic origin not being identical with eternal manifestation?  ::)
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Cavaradossi on June 27, 2019, 09:22:39 PM
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on June 28, 2019, 09:59:00 AM
 :police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Eamonomae on June 28, 2019, 01:57:44 PM
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

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


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: 123abc on June 28, 2019, 02:10:09 PM
Xavier is not interested in listening, learning or discussion. He is obstinate and only interested in being right. I don't know why people engage him. If St. Paul had his mindset he would have started quoting rabbinical tradition to explain to Christ why He couldn't be the Messiah after getting knocked off his horse.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on June 28, 2019, 05:50:29 PM
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

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


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.

It clarifies and corrects the erroneous opinions and misunderstandings about the Source and Substance of the Trinity.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on June 28, 2019, 08:22:18 PM
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

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


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.

Yes, Wandile, in the last Filioque thread you asserted that Rome teaches that the Holy Spirit receives His origin equally from both the Father and the Son eternally.  Now you claim that Rome essentially teaches the Orthodox view.  Well, which is it?


Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Alpha60 on June 29, 2019, 04:10:52 AM
Alpha, ok. What do you think St. Cyril is saying, then?

Porphyriosk, I don't think you're being mean, but I don't think there's been a thread on Filioque in the first page here, i.e. the last 3 months.

Ialmisry, I don't know and don't want to know what swear word you're trying to use, but Christians shouldn't swear at all imo. Anyway, the answer to your question, "Even if Pope St. Cyril said what you are claiming, who (or rather, Who) knows better?" is: St. Cyril and the Church are giving us an authorized interpretation of John 15:26-27, and 16:13-15. Christ is the Truth, and the Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Son just as He does from the Father. Your own Church has interpreted the Gospel as "The Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who Proceeds from the Father through the Son, and is acknowledged to be Himself God" in Nicaea II. Our Latin Fathers teach us very clearly, Jesus sometimes even says the doctrine He brings not His own; He says such things in humility, because He was in the flesh. But what He means is that it comes from His Father through Him. In the same way, St. Augustine and St. Ambrose teach us, as St. Cyril and St. Tarasius have taught you, that the Holy Spirit, Who is Himself God, proceeds from Father through Son.

Vanhyo, the text of St. Cyril is saying that the Person of the Spirit proceeds from the Son just as He proceeds from the Father. Let's look at the letter more closely.

1. St. Cyril: "For though the Spirit exist in His Own Person ... He is called the Spirit of Truth [John 15:26], and Christ is the Truth [John 14:6], and He proceedeth from Him, just as from God the Father". Who proceeds from Whom? The Person of the Spirit from the Son, as from the Father.

2. St. Cyril: "He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature. Wherefore He said also, He shall receive of Mine and declare it unto you. [John 16:14]" St. Cyril shows, the Son of God is God by Nature, in that the Father has given to His Son His [the Father's] Spirit as His [Christ's] Own Spirit. This is how the Spirit "receives" of Christ's.

[Your own Ancient Eastern Liturgies also bear witness to this fact, "One Father holy, one Son holy, one Spirit holy, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen." (The Liturgy of Patriarch St. Mark of Alexandria: Link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0718.htm)), what does it mean to say the Father and the Son are One in the Unity of the Holy Spirit? It means the One Spirit of the Father and of the Son eternally unites Them Both, because He is the Spirit of Both, and Proceeds from the Father through the Son in the Eternal Unity of the Holy Trinity.


FAIL!  I don’t know the provenance of that text, but neither the Greek Orthodox form of the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, or the related Coptic Orthodox Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril, contain the phrase “In the unity of the Holy Spirit”; that phrase appears only in Western liturgical texts that are more recent; the Strasbourg Papyrus shows the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark and its derivatives (St. Cyril, the liturgy in the Euchologion of St. Serapion of Thmuis) is the oldest attested liturgy, dating from the second century (compared to the fourth century for the Anaphora of Hippolytus).

Alas of these liturgies, only the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril is in regular use, being used a few times each year by the Copts, so using a quote from a corrupt edition of it to score points against an EO, who unless they are a seminarian has probably never celebrated the liturgy of St. Mark, probably never even heard of it, is not a brilliant strategy.

I would link you to the actual text of the liturgy except I’m too tired.  My guess is the version on New Advent was used by the Coptic Catholics pre-Vatican II and thus contains, like all of the Eastern Catholic liturgies, “corrections”, e.g. Latinizations.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 01, 2019, 04:51:14 AM
Vanhyo, we can discuss Papal Supremacy elsewhere. If, as Alpha says, "In the Unity of the Holy Spirit" is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Liturgy of St. Mark, then we'll pass over that for now until further study.

Quote from: Vanhyo
A forgery ? A mistranslation ? Or plain heresy ? Who knows ? I am telling you, the natural conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass.

It's nothing of the sort. The text of St. Fulgentius is universally admitted as authentic; can you admit you disagree with our Latin Fathers? We Latins have the conviction that Greek and Latin Fathers cannot and do not contradict each other, but only express the same mystery in different terminology.

You object, as expected, to the Holy Spirit being like the Spirit of Love eternally given by the Eternal Father to the Eternally Beloved Son. Yet, your own Archbishop Gregory Palamas has taught this: "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 (chretai) towards the Father: but insofar as he has the Spirit coming with him (sunproelthonta) from the Father and reposing connaturally in him" https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1176

And St. Augustine among Latins has expressed it like this:"And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begat Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both ... in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love." http://www.voskrese.info/spl/cyr3.html

As Scripture says that God is Love, St. Augustine is saying that, in a special way, the Holy Spirit can be called the Spirit of Love, because He is the Eternal Gift of the Eternal Father to His Eternally Beloved Son. Because Scripture calls the Son the Word and Wisdom of the Father, the Arians were told that to deny the Son was eternal was like saying there was a time when the Father was without Wisdom, which is heretical; in the same way, to say there was a time when the Father did not give His Son His Spirit is like saying there was a time when the Father did not love His Son, which is likewise heretical. That's why procession cannot be temporal. Do you think if creation never existed, the Son would not have received the Holy Spirit from the Father in eternity?

The study of Greek and Latin theologians above concludes with this: "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).11 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, characterises the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son."

Quote
In your mind you have connected the procession of the Holy Spirit with the working of miracles and your conclusion is that unless the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Son, he cannot be a divine person but only a bearer.

This is the text of St. Cyril: "He Himself again working through His own Spirit, was believed in, that He is God by Nature." The difference between the Spirit's dwelling in the Apostles is that was a dwelling by grace only, but in Christ, the Holy Spirit dwells as His own Consubstantial Spirit. St. Cyril is saying, Christ worked miracles by His own Spirit, to show He was God by Nature. The meaning is, the Holy Spirit is Consubstantial with Christ. This is linked to His proceeding [Greek is proeinai] from the Son, just as from the Father. The Spirit is Consubstantial with the Father just as with the Son, because He proceeds from the Father, just as from the Son.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 01, 2019, 05:19:15 AM
Porphyriosk, thanks, I was going by thread title, and so the first one I found with Filioque in the title was this one (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,75643.0.html) from February. But you are right.

Anyway, in the thread you mention started by Knish, where we were discussing "one principle terminology", Wandile showed that teaching is already present in St. Augustine; in fact, you said Scholastic Theologians invented a new idea, but St. Thomas cites St. Augustine, " Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20), "The Father is the Principle of the whole Deity." and again, "Augustine says (De Trin. v, 14) that the Father and the Son are not two principles, but one principle of the Holy Ghost." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article4

I think, lol, at this point, people may be wondering what on earth is meant by principle, and whether or not Latins and Greeks use it in the same way: St. Thomas defines it like this, "I answer that, The word "principle" signifies only that whence another proceeds: since anything whence something proceeds in any way we call a principle; and conversely." So, when the Latin Doctors say that the Father and the Son are One Principle of the Holy Spirit (St. Thomas even says, They are Two Spirators Spirating, but there is Only Only Procession/Spiration of the Holy Spirit), they mean only, that there is Only One Spiration of the Holy Spirit, not Two. If there were two Spirations, there would be two Spirits, which is impossible; there is One Spiration, and One Spirit, from the Father through the Son.

This is shown by the fact that, at Florence, the two formulations of Eastern and Western Tradition were considered complementary and identical: "For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, ]b]they do not intend to exclude the Son[/b]; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind." https://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/325/texts/florence.htm

Do you think this is wrong, Porphyriosk? I really believe, there are no impediments, to making a common declaration like this once more.

Quote from: Apotheoun
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

Ok. Aeterna Press has it in St. Cyril: Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. You can find the relevant parts of the letter cited, along with numerous other testimonies from Patriarch St. Cyril of Aleaxandria on the same subject,here (https://books.google.co.in/books?id=gbg3BAAAQBAJ&pg=PT20&lpg=PT20&dq=St.+Cyril+He+proceedeth+from+Him+just+as+from+the+Father&source=bl&ots=Kfwn4U8zls&sig=ACfU3U2llL_Vik5xbhNwBHaR27cAsnLR0A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjouJeimZPjAhWR6XMBHc5jDg0Q6AEwAXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=St.%20Cyril%20He%20proceedeth%20from%20Him%20just%20as%20from%20the%20Father&f=false)

Quote from: Katechon
Lol, is it still the point with hypostatic origin not being identical with eternal manifestation?

Please explain how the two differ. I've heard 3 views explained by Orthodox Christians here, and to summarize them with a convenient acronym, it would be, something like, (1) TMO: The Holy Spirit's relation to the Son is that of a temporal mission only. (2) EEP: Eternal Energetic Procession. This is the viewpoint of Orthodox writer Perry Robinson: https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/ This is how Robinson explains it, "Energetic Procession as a term refers to an eternal manifestation of the divine Person of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, and so is distinguished from the Filioque as a hypostatic procession." The third alternative would be (3) EHP: Eternal Hypostatic Procession. I would say ruling out (1) and (2) from the Fathers comes close to proving (3) must be the true Patristic Tradition, even Eastern. Now, just to clarify: by "eternal manifestation", do you mean something like energetic procession? The main objection to energetic procession that Western Christians would raise is - the divine energies are common to each of the Three Divine Persons. I think even Orthodox will agree with this. Do you, Katechon? If you do, then whenever in the text of any Father, by the very fact that Son and Spirit are distinguished, it is clear that an energetic manifestation is not being spoken of: we do not speak of the Grace of the Holy Spirit as something distinct from the Grace of the Son, because the Grace of The Three Persons is one and the same. Would you disagree? Therefore, for e.g. in a text like that in the OP, I cannot see how, when the Person of the Spirit and of the Son and of the Father are being distinguished, it is said that this does not refer to hypostatic procession. Do you mean to say, the Spirit's Grace is eternally manifested through the Son?

God bless.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 01, 2019, 08:04:00 AM
Quote from: Katechon
Lol, is it still the point with hypostatic origin not being identical with eternal manifestation?

Please explain how the two differ. I've heard 3 views explained by Orthodox Christians here, and to summarize them with a convenient acronym, it would be, something like, (1) TMO: The Holy Spirit's relation to the Son is that of a temporal mission only. (2) EEP: Eternal Energetic Procession. This is the viewpoint of Orthodox writer Perry Robinson: https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/ This is how Robinson explains it, "Energetic Procession as a term refers to an eternal manifestation of the divine Person of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, and so is distinguished from the Filioque as a hypostatic procession." The third alternative would be (3) EHP: Eternal Hypostatic Procession. I would say ruling out (1) and (2) from the Fathers comes close to proving (3) must be the true Patristic Tradition, even Eastern. Now, just to clarify: by "eternal manifestation", do you mean something like energetic procession? The main objection to energetic procession that Western Christians would raise is - the divine energies are common to each of the Three Divine Persons. I think even Orthodox will agree with this. Do you, Katechon? If you do, then whenever in the text of any Father, by the very fact that Son and Spirit are distinguished, it is clear that an energetic manifestation is not being spoken of: we do not speak of the Grace of the Holy Spirit as something distinct from the Grace of the Son, because the Grace of The Three Persons is one and the same. Would you disagree? Therefore, for e.g. in a text like that in the OP, I cannot see how, when the Person of the Spirit and of the Son and of the Father are being distinguished, it is said that this does not refer to hypostatic procession. Do you mean to say, the Spirit's Grace is eternally manifested through the Son?

God bless.

You've butchered this part. Eternal Hypostatic Procession is not even the Catholic position, as they clarified in the Munich statement of 1982: http://agrino.org/cyberdesert/statement.htm . The Catholic position, or at least the modern one, is exactly the same at the Orthodox position stated at the Council of Blachernae in 1285. I hate to plug this in shamelessly, but I've written some blog posts on the Filioque and I suggest you read them, if only for its source material:

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2019/04/14/the-filioque-a-brief-opinion/

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2019/04/30/the-filioque-a-response-to-critics/

It should be stated that some Orthodox have even argued against the Orthodox position espoused at the Council of Blachernae in 1285, that is the position of an eternal manifestation through the Son. Instead, they argue for only a temporal procession. However, let it be stated, that no Orthodox synod whatsoever has formally overturned the ruling of Blachernae on the issue of the Filioque. Therefore, its ruling is still the official position of the Orthodox Church, no matter what any Orthodox believer or theologian says.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on July 01, 2019, 09:40:03 AM
So we have the Authority of the Five Ecumenical Councils.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Apotheoun on July 01, 2019, 10:49:38 PM
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.
Agreed.

Sadly, the link Xavier provided in his response to me doesn't give access to the Greek original version of any of the quotations he has provided in English. I still want to see the Greek so that I can determine for myself what St. Cyril is saying.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on July 01, 2019, 11:48:27 PM
The Son the Word ~ Hypostasized One Divine Nature of Christ. (Against the Nestorian heresy) While Christ is God is also the Man Jesus.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on July 02, 2019, 09:29:56 AM
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

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


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.


It's basically a Study of how Cyril is different from Severus.  (Antioch)
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 04, 2019, 03:16:40 PM
:police:
Please provide the original Greek version of the quotations from St. Cyril.

This is of course, the trick the filioquists use, to appeal to the authority of bad translations rather than the original Greek.

The Filioque is equivalent to proeinai which denotes the act of going forth which is  the Greek word St Cyril used. Ekporeuesthai denotes ultimate origin which is a thing that can only be said of the Father.

In Latin (and English), there is one verb (procedere/to proceed) which covers two different concepts that are expressed in Greek with two different verbs: ekporeuesthai and proeinai. The Creed as formulated by the Second Oecumenical Council, in speaking of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, uses the Greek verb ekporeuesthai, which means "proceeds from" in the ultimate origin  sense of being. This is correctly translated into Latin with the verb procedere (which corresponds to the English to proceed). In Latin, the latins say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father “principalter” (principally/ultimately) to convey this concept.

No problem so far.

However...

The Latin verb procedere also carries a secondary meaning which cannot possibly be gleaned from the original Greek ekporeuesthai. This secondary meaning of procedere/to proceed is the sense of "to go forth", as a physical action. I can proceed to the shop. As an act. the Holy Spirit can be said to have proceeded from the Son, and therefore, it is legitimate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in so far as this second meaning goes. The latin tradition says that the Holy Spirit proceeds “mediately” from the Son to convey this concept.

This was made clear by the speech of the latin theologian and orator John of Montennero at the council of Florence when debating Mark Eugenikos. The Greeks all accepted this at the instance they heard it. Later that day the Greek recorder of the acts noted after hearing Montennero’s speech that “the first light of union appeared today”

Can you explain, logically, what this text means?

"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

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


This Council's declaration seems to very clearly say that both the Father and the Son are cause and principle of the Holy Spirit, such that although externally it may appear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two principles, they are actually one principle because both have the same Essence. Nowhere does this infallible text say that the one principle is from the Father alone, or the one cause is from the Father alone; rather, the Spirit takes origin from both the Father and the Son.

Furthermore, the Council solidifies this argument by saying that the Son has all of the properties of the Father, except that He isn't the Father, which seems to very clearly go against the claim that the Father and the Son are somehow distinct in terms of how the Holy Spirit works through the Father and the Son.

Yes, Wandile, in the last Filioque thread you asserted that Rome teaches that the Holy Spirit receives His origin equally from both the Father and the Son eternally.  Now you claim that Rome essentially teaches the Orthodox view.  Well, which is it?

What I said is directly from St Augustine. It seems you misunderstand what the latins are actually saying. I’m not saying Rome teaches the EO view. What is meant by equal procession refers not to order of origin but rather the nature of the procession. If there isn’t an equal procession then there are two and not one spiration.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 04, 2019, 03:39:48 PM
One principle has been explained adequately by Xavier.

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

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

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

- Since the second directly lights the third, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the second and comes from it. Additionally, since the second could not light the third without the first, it’s accurate to say the third flame is lit by the first and second flames. Thus they first and second constitute one principle of the third as they together (from the first through the second)  light the third.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: brlon on July 04, 2019, 04:03:45 PM
And if the first candle alone lights both the second candle and the third candle - simultaneously, even?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 04, 2019, 04:10:19 PM
And if the first candle alone lights both the second candle and the third candle - simultaneously, even?

Simultaneously but independently or simultaneously and dependently?
The former is the EO view, the second is the Catholic and patristic view.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 04, 2019, 06:50:22 PM
And if the first candle alone lights both the second candle and the third candle - simultaneously, even?

Simultaneously but independently or simultaneously and dependently?
The former is the EO view, the second is the Catholic and patristic view.

I saw that you used the word “alone”. In that case it would be the EO view and not the catholic and is not relevant as I was trying to explain the rationale of the catholic view and how it works in this analogy which demonstrates the difference in meaning of princpalter and “as from principle”.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on July 05, 2019, 03:11:50 PM
Yes, the Holy Trinity ~ Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 06, 2019, 02:29:14 AM
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Cavaradossi on July 06, 2019, 10:37:06 AM
One principle has been explained adequately by Xavier.

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

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

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

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

Your analogy isn’t even consistent with Thomas on the subject insofar as he argues that the Spirit proceeds from the Father both immediately and mediately in ST I, 36, iii, ad. 1, giving the example of Abel being born of Adam and Eve (though he admits this material example is somewhat inept). In your example, the third flame proceeds from the first only mediately. For your example to be consistent in general with Thomistic thought, the first and second candles as a single principle with respect to the faculty of lighting the third candle should both light the third candle, the second candle somehow having received the faculty to light the third candle from the first candle which properly has this faculty (indeed in ad. 2 of the same question, Thomas glosses principaliter to refer to the fact that the power of spiration is proper to the Father while the Son has this power from the Father).
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 06, 2019, 10:38:23 AM
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks? 
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 06, 2019, 12:58:31 PM
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks?

That's Sabellianism.

Seriously though. Wandile and Xavier have come here about the Filioque like 12 times in different threads. We eventually get to the point that they admit that they don't attribute causality to the Son. And then they just blow it all up with a bad analogy or by quoting some Catholic saint with awful theology, who does attribute causality to the Son. It's kinda frustrating.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on July 06, 2019, 01:31:25 PM
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks?

That's Sabellianism.

Seriously though. Wandile and Xavier have come here about the Filioque like 12 times in different threads. We eventually get to the point that they admit that they don't attribute causality to the Son. And then they just blow it all up with a bad analogy or by quoting some Catholic saint with awful theology, who does attribute causality to the Son. It's kinda frustrating.

I've recently decided not to engage these conversations anymore, as it always results in endless circular discussions that go nowhere.   

Here's all I need to know about the Filioque issue: 

- Christ Himself says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. 
- The Church composed the Creed restating Christ's teaching directly from Scripture. 
- The Church formally stated that no change could ever be made to that Creed. 

That's enough for me.

To Wandile's credit, he only tries to defend the Roman position on existing threads and doesn't constantly start new threads.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 06, 2019, 02:06:09 PM
Rohzek, I read your link, and I very much appreciate that you cite St. Augustine in De Trinitate, in Latin no less! However, I would ask those who can (it's not light reading, to be sure, but very well worth the effort, even just for our spirituality, and deeper knowledge and love of the Holy Trinity, irrespective of the controversies) to try to make the effort to read De Trinitate in full. It's online at New Advent here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm As to the conclusion of your first link, the formula of St. Tarasius is acceptable.

But as to the confusion regarding Cause, it arises because "Cause" in the Greek Fathers" corresponds to "Principle without Principle" in the Latin Fathers. Nothing else. The Latin Fathers say the Eternal Father is the Sole Principle without Principle. The Greek Fathers say the Eternal Father is the Sole Unorginate Cause. Neither of this precludes eternal hypostatic procession being mediated though the Son.

Wandile's Analogy is Patristic, this is St. Gregory of Nyssa: "It is as if a man were to see a separate flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the third flame is caused by that of the first being transmitted to the middle, and then kindling the end torch ), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?"(On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians)

And elsewhere, the same Saint writes "one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father." (On "Not Three Gods")

Some excerpts from De Trinitate, which plainly show beyond reasonable doubt that St. Augustine the Great of Hippo teaches EHP:

"When we say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift, we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Therefore the Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father and the Son; and on that account, perhaps, He is so called, because the same name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himself is called specially that which they are called in common; because both the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father is holy and the Son holy. In order, therefore, that the communion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable to both, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinity is one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its own unity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.” (De Trinitate, Book V, Ch. 11)

“And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself ... Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him....
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 06, 2019, 02:17:05 PM
... And the Son is born of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving the procession without any interval of time, yet in common from both [Father and Son] ... Therefore the Spirit of both is not begotten of both, but proceeds from both. (De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 26)

“But because it is most difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeable and indivisible Trinity, let it suffice meanwhile to put before those who are not able to be drawn on further, what we said upon this subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears of Christian people, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among other things, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why did the Son say, ‘He proceeds from the Father.’ Why, think you, except as He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from whom also He Himself is? Whence also is that which He says, ‘My doctrine is not my own, but His that sent me?’ If, therefore, it is His doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not His own, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where He so says, He proceeds from the Father, as not to say, He proceeds not from me?

From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divine nature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him too proceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as He proceeds from the Father. ... For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life, while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as the Father, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son to have life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life should proceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself. I have transferred this from that sermon into this book, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers…. Lift up your eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if you can. For so you will see how the birth of the Word of God differs from the procession of the Gift of God, on account of which the only-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten of the Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that He proceeds from Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind of consubstantial communion of Father and Son” (De Trinitate, Book 15, Ch. 27) To study the matter further, https://erickybarra.org/2018/07/07/st-augustine-of-hippo-procession-of-the-holy-spirit-from-the-father-and-son/

(1) It is clear St. Augustine teaches Eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit from Both the Father and the Son, so TMO is ruled out.
(2) Can EEP really explain these texts? No, very unlikely, St. Augustine is speaking of Who the Holy Spirit is within the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit, explains St. Augustine, would be all these things even if creation never existed and no grace ever needed to be dispensed. The Holy Spirit has it from the Father that He should proceed from the Son, for the Father gave this to the Son eternally in begetting Him. Distinct Hypostatic Relation.
(3) Therefore, the true doctrine, contra the Synod of Blachernae, and as Patriarch Bekkus defended, is Eternal Hypostatic Procession.

I forgot to mention regarding the earlier issue of the Liturgy of St. Mark and whether "In the Unity of the Holy Spirit" is used in the earliest extant manuscripts: well, it is a matter of certainty that the Traditional Roman Liturgy uses that expression, "P. O God, + who established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divinity, who humbled himself to share in our humanity, Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord. who lives and reigns with You in the Unity of the holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen." Roman Liturgy (https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/Traditional-Latin-Tridentine-Mass.html) So, the expression "The Father and the Son Reign In the Unity of the Holy Spirit" is a common liturgical doctrinal expression, at least in the West. The history of the Liturgy of St. Mark I have not had time yet to study in more detail. God bless.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Eamonomae on July 06, 2019, 02:52:35 PM
Your candle analogy sucks. Make a better one.

How do you feel about shamrocks?

That's Sabellianism.


Nope, it’s Partialism.

Saint Patrick’s Bad Analogies
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: platypus on July 06, 2019, 03:35:13 PM
Saint Patrick’s Bad Analogies
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AU2Ln65I_a8/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 07, 2019, 02:19:17 AM
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

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

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

The Father isn't just principle without principle for Catholicism. In the absolute sense, he is the only source. Making the Son a cause of the hypostatic coming into being of the Holy Spirit violates Divine Simplicity.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 08, 2019, 04:54:48 AM
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.

Please let this be trolling.

Not trolling.

Please tell me that you have rejected the theory of evolution. It is sort of silly to talk about theology and yet lack the basic foundation(that genesis is true) by which the entire faith is made solid and coherent.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 08, 2019, 09:15:25 AM
Quote
What is the Orthodox answer to the Cardinal?
The final conclusion of the filioque "theology" is the clown mass. The middle age scholastics explained the filioque with absolute divine simplicity but ADS inescapably leads to the doctrine of created grace. If all you get in salvation in infused created good or created effect, then as V2 "theologians" put it, all religions have some kind of created goodness and therefor lead to God in some way. This is why you include pegan elements in your novus ordo mass, it is the natural conclusion of your filioque philosophizings.

Please let this be trolling.

Not trolling.

Please tell me that you have rejected the theory of evolution. It is sort of silly to talk about theology and yet lack the basic foundation(that genesis is true) by which the entire faith is made solid and coherent.

Spell out step by step how Filioque leads to clown masses. They had it for 1200 years more or less and only recently got clown masses, which are actually not the norm. I want to see how you got to your conclusion.

Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: noahzarc1 on July 08, 2019, 09:31:32 AM
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
I don't understand your analogy with OJ and what you mean by "Exhibit A - sedevacantist?" Can you expand your thought a bit so I can follow what your argument is?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on July 08, 2019, 10:54:56 AM
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
I don't understand your analogy with OJ and what you mean by "Exhibit A - sedevacantist?" Can you expand your thought a bit so I can follow what your argument is?

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

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

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

It is the rationalist Western mind that insists on a proven scientific explanation for the origin of man.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on July 08, 2019, 11:00:30 AM
He can show you the basics of Creationism compared to Evolution debate.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 08, 2019, 11:12:51 AM
Also, Xavier is a young earth creationist just like you, yet he still managed to mess it all up according to you. It doesn't seem relevant here at all. But if I was forced at gunpoint to make some sort of rash connection between orthodoxy and creationism, I'd have to say that creationism serves as a pretty good indicator of whether an Orthodox believer believes OJ didn't do it (creationist), or if an Orthodox believer believes OJ did do it (evolutionist). Exhibit A - sedevacantist.
I don't understand your analogy with OJ and what you mean by "Exhibit A - sedevacantist?" Can you expand your thought a bit so I can follow what your argument is?

Exactly, just like filioque and clown masses.

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

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

Keep trying, you'll get there.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 09, 2019, 03:05:43 PM
@Rohzek
Quote
Spell out step by step how Filioque leads to clown masses. They had it for 1200 years more or less and only recently got clown masses, which are actually not the norm. I want to see how you got to your conclusion.
You are asking me the question while having the answer in your quote, which makes me think further clarification on what i wrote would be a waste of time with you.

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


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

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

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



Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 09, 2019, 05:12:15 PM
@Rohzek
Quote
Spell out step by step how Filioque leads to clown masses. They had it for 1200 years more or less and only recently got clown masses, which are actually not the norm. I want to see how you got to your conclusion.
You are asking me the question while having the answer in your quote, which makes me think further clarification on what i wrote would be a waste of time with you.

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


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

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

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

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

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

As for my blog:

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

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

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

Man, its almost like I don't even really believe in this analogy; that I put it on the same level as your utterly outlandish filioque = clown mass connection.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Lepanto on July 09, 2019, 05:38:17 PM
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 09, 2019, 05:42:52 PM
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

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

There is a lot of space between the filioque and clown masses. One is gonna have to do better to make the connection and to say the filioque necessarily leads to clown masses.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Mor Ephrem on July 09, 2019, 05:44:22 PM
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

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

Moses caused the Holocaust.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 09, 2019, 05:49:26 PM
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

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

Moses caused the Holocaust.

Should have known he was a double agent for the Egyptians. Just look at his name for goodness sake.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 11, 2019, 08:34:26 AM
One principle has been explained adequately by Xavier.

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

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

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

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

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

Well this is just very wrong in so far as my analogy was meant to demonstrate principle and principalter. Not principalter vs mediate. But go on...
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 11, 2019, 08:43:23 AM
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Making the Son a cause of the hypostatic coming into being of the Holy Spirit violates Divine Simplicity.
It actually has no bearing in so far as the opposite relations do not touch or harm the divine essence. This is explained thoroughly by St Thomas.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 11, 2019, 08:54:44 AM
Quote
Quote
In the absolute sense, he is the only source.
Absolutely, yes
Correction: I meant to say “ultimately”.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 11, 2019, 11:06:45 AM
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then your understanding of God precludes his divine simplicity. We're talking about hypostaseos here, not just the ousia. Saying it doesn't effect the ousia but that the person of the Holy Spirit still requires two contributions is nonetheless a partition, imperfect, and unworthy of being called God. You're falling into the very fallacy that St. Photius argued against, (and I'm not even sure people were even attributing causality to the Son among the Frankish episcopate in the 9th century). And it also appears that there is a contradiction between the Catholic statement given at Munich and the Catholic statement given at Florence.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Eamonomae on July 11, 2019, 02:59:58 PM
Probably when the RC church split off from Orthodoxy, a slow process of decay started. Like a branch cut off from a tree that is still green to the eye, but already rotten inside.
Now, clown massed were not there in the beginning, when the cut branch was still vital and lush.
But after a few centuries of slow decay, they eventually surfaced as a symptom of a larger issue, the filioque.
How about that?

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

Moses caused the Holocaust.

And Chalcedon caused the fall of the Byzantine Empire.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 14, 2019, 04:34:31 AM
Did Adam and Eve cause Jesus and Mary to come?  ;D Anyway, yes, Vanhyo and I, disagreeing on other things, do indeed agree that Adam and Eve are the first parents of the whole human race, and were miraculously made by God One and Triune by special Divine Creation less than 10,000 years ago, for all Sacred Scripture and all Sacred Tradition, both Latin and Greek, and Eastern, Western, Roman, Byzantine, Syrian, Cappadocian and every other Christian Tradition, lol, have handed it down to us; and this was almost unanimously believed by nearly all Christians for some 1800 years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Persons are distinguished only by Hypostatic relations.
2. If there were no hypostatic relation between Son and Spirit, they would therefore be but One Person Only; but this is heretical and destroys Faith.
3. Hence, it must needs be confessed that the Holy Spirit, as the Third Hypostasis in the Holy Trinity, is produced by the Father through the Son.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 14, 2019, 04:54:08 AM
3: On St. Augustine and Divine Simplicity: Niw, you adduce a theological reason of your own, Divine Simplicity. But what is Divine Simplicity anyway? St. Augustine proves it from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition like this: Holy  Writ says the Son is the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Life and the Love of the Father and Son. But the Son and the Spirit are the Divine Essence. Hence, Wisdom, Love, Power and all the Divine Attributes (when we consider them ad intra in Their Source, or within the Holy Trinity) are the Divine Essence. [In the external manifestation of those attributes, what we call ad extra operations of the Holy Trinity, the attributes differ in their manifestation]

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

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

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

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

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

"And it is proved by many other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who is specially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Father and of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says, Whom I will send unto you from the Father; and in another place, Whom the Father will send in my name. And we are so taught that He proceeds from both, because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And when He had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples, He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, so as to show that He proceeded also from Himself ... Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of the Son from the Father without time, understand also the procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time.And let him who can understand, in that which the Son says, As the Father has life in Himself, so has He given to the Son to have life in Himself, not that the Father gave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He so begot Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave to the Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Father who gave it: let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it be understood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Father whatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him..."
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 14, 2019, 12:49:29 PM
Actually Xavier, the Munich statement is pretty clear. Lemme explicate:

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

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

As for your Augustine passage, as I explained in detail in both of my blog posts, those double processions you refer to have nothing to do with hypostatic origin. They have to do with hypostatic relations. The Holy Spirit is fully the Holy Spirit by means of the Father alone. Yet, it also has an eternal hypostatic relationship that it shares with both the Father and the Son.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on July 14, 2019, 01:33:55 PM
Actually Xavier, the Munich statement is pretty clear. Lemme explicate:

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

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

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

You will now receive a three page response. 

Either that, or an entirely new thread will be started this week that begins "My dear friends, let us now consider the following teaching regarding the Filioque..."
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 14, 2019, 03:16:42 PM
Actually Xavier, the Munich statement is pretty clear. Lemme explicate:

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

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

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

You will now receive a three page response. 

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

lol, you're not wrong.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 15, 2019, 01:48:14 PM
Quote
St. Augustine and Divine Simplicity
Well, good think that:
1. He wasn't the Pope.
2. He didn't speak ex-cathedra.
3. Papal infallibility is a false doctrine made up by delusional apostate puffed up with pride & vanity.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 15, 2019, 02:43:44 PM
Again Xavier, you're attributing causality to the Son. That's not even the current Catholic position. From official Vatican documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly for the sake the argument, even if you were correct in noting a contradiction... The statement of the commission does not represent the Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox for that matter but only the views and conclusions of the members of the commission. The position of the Church is in her magisterial documents (catechism, Conciliar decrees, Papal pronouncements etc). The Munich statements is a statement of the the JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. In some instances, the conclusions of these commissions have even been diverged from and outright dissented by the Eastern Orthodox have diverged from some of the commissions conclusions.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on July 16, 2019, 05:10:27 PM
3: On St. Augustine and Divine Simplicity: Niw, you adduce a theological reason of your own, Divine Simplicity. But what is Divine Simplicity anyway? St. Augustine proves it from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition like this: Holy  Writ says the Son is the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the Life and the Love of the Father and Son. But the Son and the Spirit are the Divine Essence. Hence, Wisdom, Love, Power and all the Divine Attributes (when we consider them ad intra in Their Source, or within the Holy Trinity) are the Divine Essence. [In the external manifestation of those attributes, what we call ad extra operations of the Holy Trinity, the attributes differ in their manifestation]

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

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

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

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

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

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


Thanks for explaining.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 17, 2019, 12:52:07 AM
Por, rather the sequence goes like - Orthodox raise some objections, Catholics like Wandile and myself address and answer all the objections from beginning to end in detail, with numerous authorities; then, like above, almost all of them are ignored, one single statement in one document is latched upon, and all the ancient Fathers, the demonstration from theological reason etc are again ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

[1] see, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, A. Edward Siecienski, pp. 56-57
[2] Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
[3] Second Council of Constantinople [553]
[4] The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit: Study from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 17, 2019, 01:15:23 AM
Quote from: Vanhyo
Well, good think that:
1. He [Bishop St. Augustine] wasn't the Pope.

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

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

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

Quote
No real distinction between divine essence and divine energies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 20, 2019, 06:13:33 AM
Quote from: Vanhyo
Well, good think that:
1. He [Bishop St. Augustine] wasn't the Pope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
No real distinction between divine essence and divine energies

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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








Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on July 20, 2019, 09:39:43 AM
Good post Vanhyo.


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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm sorry if what I've written sounds harsh.  I have no animosity against you personally and you seem like a very nice guy.  Just be careful about trying to show off your piety because it can be off-putting.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Rohzek on July 20, 2019, 10:28:13 AM
I'm just going to answer one last thing before moving on here, Xavier. My central problem with the analogy of Fire lay with the context in which it is being used and the lack of clarity it has with the subject at hand, namely the Filioque discussion. Ostensibly, when it was first brought out in this thread, as was established in previous threads, God the Father was the sole cause and it is the Orthodox suspicion that Catholics do not believe that which needed to be cleared up. As this thread now demonstrates, however, neither you nor Wandile believe that God the Father is the sole cause in the Trinity. So my objection to it is mute at this point because it is now clear that you believe something that I find irreconcilable to the faith as a whole. I also suspect that you're using a poor translation of St. Gregory of Nyssa because I've read that passage before without the key words of "first Cause". St. Gregory only describes the Father alone as a cause. But then he goes on to say, "First" without the key word of cause coming after, which would imply what you're hoping to imply - that there is a secondary cause. There is no secondary cause. The idea is nonsense. From Siecienski, whom you cite elsewhere:

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

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

The Filioque page 43

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

Vanhyo, you have my admiration for continuing this argument. I myself don't see much reason in doing so. In the past few threads, at least we established as common ground that God the Father was the sole cause. But here, now both Wandile and Xavier are saying that the Holy Spirit requires a secondary cause, are rejecting the Munich statement of agreement between our bishops and theirs, and are saying simplicity lies in the essence of God alone, not the persons as well. I don't know. I'll probably eat my words, but maybe its wise to take a page out of Tertullian on this one and to ignore it.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: noahzarc1 on July 20, 2019, 10:35:28 AM
Yes, PorphyriosK this is not the first "Filioque"/"Absolute Divine Simplicity vs. Essence & Energies" distinction discussion I've seen on this board. However, I must state I can seldom follow any of them after a time. I've even tried to listen to Jay Dyer on the topic and even after a while, he loses me. My point in all this is first, is it even possible for us today to accurately portray, comprehend and understand exactly what was debated on the Filioque because as I understand it, the difference were based on the trouble between Greek and Latin? Therefore, speaking English, can I really have an appreciation for the issue today as they debated it centuries ago?

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

Some days I wonder if these conversations are helpful at all.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on July 20, 2019, 10:57:17 AM
Yes, PorphyriosK this is not the first "Filioque"/"Absolute Divine Simplicity vs. Essence & Energies" distinction discussion I've seen on this board. However, I must state I can seldom follow any of them after a time. I've even tried to listen to Jay Dyer on the topic and even after a while, he loses me. My point in all this is first, is it even possible for us today to accurately portray, comprehend and understand exactly what was debated on the Filioque because as I understand it, the difference were based on the trouble between Greek and Latin? Therefore, speaking English, can I really have an appreciation for the issue today as they debated it centuries ago?

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

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


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

No, in real life these conversations do not happen and are not that relevant.  They're only relevant (for a time) for people like us who have struggled to discern who holds the fullness of truth between the Churches.  I have great love for both Catholics and Orthodox I know and these things never come up with them in social situations.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on July 21, 2019, 01:06:49 PM
Xavier,

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

Forgive me.

Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: WPM on July 21, 2019, 01:36:30 PM
It took me several years of work to figure why or how Jesus Christ is God. (I think he means Human Messiah but not God the Father)
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Lepanto on July 21, 2019, 03:19:29 PM
No, in real life these conversations do not happen and are not that relevant.  They're only relevant (for a time) for people like us who have struggled to discern who holds the fullness of truth between the Churches.
This is my experience also. I never debated such things in real life apart from very few conversations with Catholic and Orthodox priests. This discussion is mostly virtual, on online fora such as this one.
The Catholics I know that I think a real pious hardly ever think about such discussions or Orthodoxy in general. At least that is my impression. I assume the same holds in turn for the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: noahzarc1 on July 21, 2019, 03:36:56 PM
No, in real life these conversations do not happen and are not that relevant.  They're only relevant (for a time) for people like us who have struggled to discern who holds the fullness of truth between the Churches.
This is my experience also. I never debated such things in real life apart from very few conversations with Catholic and Orthodox priests. This discussion is mostly virtual, on online fora such as this one.
The Catholics I know that I think a real pious hardly ever think about such discussions or Orthodoxy in general. At least that is my impression. I assume the same holds in turn for the Orthodox.
I was at a training all week in Texas and we had some very interesting backgrounds there. One person who survived the civil war in Yugoslavia and another who survived the revolution in Iran. A few others that were Catholic. We talked about many things. Two topics that never came up were Absolute Divine Simplicity or the Essence/Energy distinction. I think most of the grumbling that goes on amongst the faith crowd happens online
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Eamonomae on July 22, 2019, 01:18:16 AM
Well, here's a question I have, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but how can the Energies of God not be of the Essence of God?

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

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

Well, if God is His Energies, how is it not ultimately a part of God's One Divine Essence, or what it means to be God?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 22, 2019, 04:38:00 AM
Well, here's a question I have, and perhaps I'm misunderstanding things, but how can the Energies of God not be of the Essence of God?

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

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

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

The distinction is also necessary for theology, if essence and energy are the same thing then theosis is not possible, because such thinking would imply we become gods by essence. The orthodox Church properly teaches that the saints who reach theosis become deified by uncreated grace or as St Paul puts it “it is no longer i who live but Christ who lives in me” . Is Christ living and acting through st Paul a creaturely thing ?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 22, 2019, 08:30:27 AM
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

The west teaches we will participate in God and see him ass he is. We truly inerecat with him. Yet we don’t become Gods because of our limited nature, can only experience God to the extent of our being this not becoming gods yet still deified.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 22, 2019, 09:06:45 AM
His energies*

As he is*

Interact*

Forgive me for the typos I was typing that up on my phone.  ;D
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 22, 2019, 09:31:26 AM
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

The west teaches we will participate in God and see him ass he is. We truly inerecat with him. Yet we don’t become Gods because of our limited nature, can only experience God to the extent of our being this not becoming gods yet still deified.
I could say that you for example, are a confused erring person but that is not who you are in substance but who you are in operation. Yet i am not making two wandiles, one here>space and one there, it is still one wandile.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 22, 2019, 10:11:41 AM
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

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

Anyway, My actions aren’t me though. They are a “reflection” of me as far as I see it.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 22, 2019, 11:43:27 AM
Anyway, My actions aren’t me though. They are a “reflection” of me as far as I see it.
You could say that the comment i see on my monitor is the reflection of your activity but your activity is really you. That is a nice way to get rid yourself of responsibility though.

I thought you were going to smash your operation into your substance, even had prepared the chessmate answer, nevertheless you opted to instead present what you defend from another angle. Ok, that works too. Lets use that analogy, apply it and see if it works: Is the Consecrated Holy Eucharist Truly God or a reflection of God ?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 22, 2019, 12:11:36 PM
Anyway, My actions aren’t me though. They are a “reflection” of me as far as I see it.
You could say that the comment i see on my monitor is the reflection of your activity but your activity is really you. That is a nice way to get rid yourself of responsibility though.

I thought you were going to smash your operation into your substance, even had prepared the chessmate answer, nevertheless you opted to instead present what you defend from another angle. Ok, that works too. Lets use that analogy, apply it and see if it works: Is the Consecrated Holy Eucharist Truly God or a reflection of God ?

It’s is truly God because of transubstantiation. That is the substance of the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and Divinity of God, not a reflection. It’s is him present. Not an action.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 22, 2019, 01:15:02 PM
It’s is truly God because of transubstantiation. That is the substance of the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and Divinity of God, not a reflection. It’s is him present. Not an action.

Okey then, if you take Holy Communion and energy is the same as the essence, then the essence of God is added to you ?


Not an action ? I am afraid you do not have a choice here, it is dogmatically defined at the sixth ecumenical council:

The Human Nature or in the terminology of the Holy Fathers, the "flesh of the Lord" united with the Godhead, was enriched by Divine powers without losing anything of its own attributes, and became a participant of the Divine dignity but not of the Divine Nature. The flesh being deified, was not destroyed, but continued in its own state and nature - as the council explains it

Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 22, 2019, 01:21:15 PM
It’s is truly God because of transubstantiation. That is the substance of the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and Divinity of God, not a reflection. It’s is him present. Not an action.

Okey then, if you take Holy Communion and energy is the same as the essence, then the essence of God is added to you ?
I don’t like to say added. Rather we participate in the essence of God finitely. Thus, we are truly deified yet because of our participation’s finititude, we do not become God who is infinite.

Quote
Not an action ? I am afraid you do not have a choice here, it is dogmatically defined at the sixth ecumenical council:

The Human Nature or in the terminology of the Holy Fathers, the "flesh of the Lord" united with the Godhead, was enriched by Divine powers without losing anything of its own attributes, and became a participant of the Divine dignity but not of the Divine Nature. The flesh being deified, was not destroyed, but continued in its own state and nature - as the council explains it
This preserves the distinction between Divinity and humanity within the Hypostatic Union and refuted Monophysitism on the point of the nature’s mixing. It’s not related to essence-energies
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: PorphyriosK on July 22, 2019, 01:33:36 PM
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

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

Wandile, I'm just curious to know if you believe the Eastern Catholic churches are in error for following the theology of essence/energies distinction and for venerating St. Gregory Palamas?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 22, 2019, 01:54:45 PM
Quote
Not an action ? I am afraid you do not have a choice here, it is dogmatically defined at the sixth ecumenical council:

The Human Nature or in the terminology of the Holy Fathers, the "flesh of the Lord" united with the Godhead, was enriched by Divine powers without losing anything of its own attributes, and became a participant of the Divine dignity but not of the Divine Nature. The flesh being deified, was not destroyed, but continued in its own state and nature - as the council explains it
This preserves the distinction between Divinity and humanity within the Hypostatic Union and refuted Monophysitism on the point of the nature’s mixing. It’s not related to essence-energies

The hypostatic union of the two natures of the Lord is energetic, otherwise the two natures will become one supernature.

It’s is truly God because of transubstantiation. That is the substance of the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and Divinity of God, not a reflection. It’s is him present. Not an action.

Okey then, if you take Holy Communion and energy is the same as the essence, then the essence of God is added to you ?
I don’t like to say added. Rather we participate in the essence of God finitely. Thus, we are truly deified yet because of our participation’s finititude, we do not become God who is infinite.
Clever, but that is not what trent teaches:

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

If according to papal doctrine: if the justice of God is His essence and we are not JUST by that which he himself is JUST... then we are just by ..... created grace.

You most certainly shocked me by your innovative opinion, it is just not quite in line with trent so i have to disregard it as private thing.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 22, 2019, 01:56:34 PM
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

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

Wandile, I'm just curious to know if you believe the Eastern Catholic churches are in error for following the theology of essence/energies distinction and for venerating St. Gregory Palamas?

Some have tried to reconcile St Thomas with St Gregory and thus neither side a wrong. As far as I have seen (regarding the representations of St Gregory’s thought from EO), I think it’s wrong and thus they (Eastern Catholics who hold this view) are wrong. Bear in mind not all Eastern Catholics hold to the Palamite outlook as not all Eastern Catholics are Byzantine. The church has not ruled on this matter so it is permissible to hold either side without issue.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Wandile on July 22, 2019, 02:32:05 PM
Quote
Not an action ? I am afraid you do not have a choice here, it is dogmatically defined at the sixth ecumenical council:

The Human Nature or in the terminology of the Holy Fathers, the "flesh of the Lord" united with the Godhead, was enriched by Divine powers without losing anything of its own attributes, and became a participant of the Divine dignity but not of the Divine Nature. The flesh being deified, was not destroyed, but continued in its own state and nature - as the council explains it
This preserves the distinction between Divinity and humanity within the Hypostatic Union and refuted Monophysitism on the point of the nature’s mixing. It’s not related to essence-energies

The hypostatic union of the two natures of the Lord is energetic, otherwise the two natures will become one supernature.
This is something I just completely disagree with. The council is simply speaking of how the union is effected yet no mixture happens. The union is a union of personage. In that there is one Christ with two natures. No council has ever defined how this occurs, only that it occurs and how it exits (no mixture). Everything else, you’re extrapolating.

Quote
It’s is truly God because of transubstantiation. That is the substance of the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and Divinity of God, not a reflection. It’s is him present. Not an action.

Okey then, if you take Holy Communion and energy is the same as the essence, then the essence of God is added to you ?
I don’t like to say added. Rather we participate in the essence of God finitely. Thus, we are truly deified yet because of our participation’s finititude, we do not become God who is infinite.
Clever, but that is not what trent teaches:

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

If according to papal doctrine: if the justice of God is His essence and we are not JUST by that which he himself is JUST... then we are just by ..... created grace.
This is so wrong... I’m not even sure you know what created grace is but this is besides the point.

Your reading of this passage is completely wrong. What you are reading from this is not anything to do with matter of essence-energies. It’s speaking of of a conceptual difference for theologians reading passage. The justice of God by which he himself is just refers to Gods just nature and why he is never unjust as a Judge. Where as what justifies man, (that is, spiritual renewal by importation of grace) refers to the process of God making us spiritually alive. It’s a distinction in Chapter 7 of the Sixth session to avoid confusion on what is being spoken about before they go on to describe how a man is justified (the re-creation of the sinner through the infusion of sanctifying grace).

Lastly when you quote catholic sources please reference what it is you are quoting so I can find it easily.

Quote
You most certainly shocked me by your innovative opinion, it is just not quite in line with trent so i have to disregard it as private thing.
No novelty. It’s straight Thomistic. That man partakes/participates/experiences God truly but only finitely. Finitely, not in the object (God) being experienced but rather in the subject experiencing the object.
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Eamonomae on July 22, 2019, 02:37:11 PM
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God.

What you said is precisely what I'm confused at - if there is composition in God, wouldn't said composition be the Divine Essence in toto? And why wouldn't it be? After all, it can be argued that humans are composite via the fact that we have flesh and a soul, but isn't the fact that we have a flesh and a soul what it means to be human, and therefore, having a flesh and a soul is a part of the human essence?
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Eamonomae on July 22, 2019, 02:40:26 PM
But your essence is what you are. It’s your “is-ness”. God’s essence is divinity/Godliness. Thus anything else that is not his essence cannot possibly be divine unless it somehow is part of his essence. If there are other things which are God but not his essence, at the very least there is composition in God and at worst (logically) there are multiple Gods... I still have not seen an explanation how we are deified if we are not really experiencing God but rather his which aren’t really him. 

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

Wandile, I'm just curious to know if you believe the Eastern Catholic churches are in error for following the theology of essence/energies distinction and for venerating St. Gregory Palamas?

Some have tried to reconcile St Thomas with St Gregory and thus neither side a wrong. As far as I have seen (regarding the representations of St Gregory’s thought from EO), I think it’s wrong and thus they (Eastern Catholics who hold this view) are wrong. Bear in mind not all Eastern Catholics hold to the Palamite outlook as not all Eastern Catholics are Byzantine. The church has not ruled on this matter so it is permissible to hold either side without issue.

Some? The Byzantine Catholic Churches commemorate Saint Gregory Palamas as a Saint officially during the Liturgy, and every Byzantine Catholic Church that I've seen on the topic of Saint Gregory Palamas has argued that there is explicit compatibility between Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palamas, while pretending such objections to the view don't exist and "quit breaking our ecumenical spirit, bruv!"
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Vanhyo on July 29, 2019, 01:33:52 PM
A timely, relevant and comprehensive to our discussion material (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQR2kGoEy8Y)
Title: Re: Cardinal Robert: St. Cyril's letter, taught Filioque, approved by Five Councils.
Post by: Xavier on July 29, 2019, 02:42:01 PM
I don't have the time for a detailed response right now, but if I'm understanding correctly, the most common objection our Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters have to the Filioque doctrine is that, even though the Spirit, in His Procession from the Father, is in some way mediated through the Son (St. Maximus, St. Tarasius) yet He is not so Hypostatically and Personally, but only Energetically and by way of Grace.

Well I wrote an article just published on 1 Pet5 about that objection. While it's a very reasonable objection, here's my limited understanding as to why imho, the doctrine is not defeated by the objection:

Objection II: Even if the Holy Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father is mediated through the Son, it doesn’t seem to follow that He proceeds through the Son. It could be that it is merely His energetic manifestation that happens through the Son, but not that His divine hypostasis receives essence from Father through Son.

There are only two processions in the Holy Trinity, using “procession” in a broad sense (as both St. Augustine and St. Cyril do) to explain it.

(1) The eternal procession specifically called generation, by which the Person of the Father is distinguished from the Person of the Son, so that He Who begat is one Person, and He Who is begotten is another. (This second objection is almost like someone saying the Son’s hypostasis is not eternally begotten of the Father.)

(2) And the eternal procession specifically called spiration, by which the Person of the Holy Spirit is distinguished from both the Person of the Father and the Person of the Son. For He from Whom He proceeds is One Person, He through Whom He proceeds is the Second Person, and He Who proceeds is the Eternal Third Person.

This is the sense in which Pope St. Leo the Great explains it in the source cited above. Since the hypostases are distinguished, it is clearly hypostatic procession.

The answer to energetic procession is as follows: there is only One Grace and One Energy of the Three Divine Persons. For, e.g., the Grace of the Holy Spirit is not distinct from the Grace of the Son, but is identical to it. Therefore, when Son and Spirit are distinguished, as by St. Cyril, it must be Persons Who are spoken of."

From: https://onepeterfive.com/filioque-separated-east/ Thoughts?

Will be sure to get back to the rest later. Grace be with all. God bless.