Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Why doesn't anyone speak normally anymore?
Religious Topics / Re: Sad times
« Last post by Alxandra on Today at 01:29:48 PM »
Lord have mercy
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by Gamliel on Today at 01:28:54 PM »
kyrie eleison
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Keep the Filioque
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Today at 01:28:52 PM »
If the Spirit must come from the Father and the Son in order for that distinction to be preserved, how come the Son doesn't need to come from the Father and the Spirit?
Because we must also preserve the natural properties of persons as tradition teaches us about each of them. That is; this principle of necessity of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the father and the son is guided by a grander principle  : The things proper to each person which make then who they are. The father is the father because the son is begotten of him. Not because the spirit proceeds from him.

So the Father and the Son only have a relation with each other in a fundamental sense, and then, secondarily and together, a relation with the Spirit?

No they have an opposite relation exclusive to themselves and another exclusive to the holy spirit respectively each of each other (That is the Father and the Son each to the Holy Ghost)

As St Thomas says excellently :

"the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations"

What is an "opposite relation"? 

"Begetter"/"begotten" would seem only to address the relationship between two of the persons, it says nothing about the third.  How is the third distinct from the second?

It is about the two persons and is exclusive to them because the Son is testified to be from the Father alone.

Who testified this?  Where? 
Besides the obvious (scripture), the Athanasian creed testifies this.

Where in Scripture?  Citations, please. 

As for the Athanasian creed, I'm not sure I can accept that as a legitimate source if your Church couldn't accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed as it is.  But if you can cite something specific within it, please go ahead.

The third person is addressed by this way : See it is necessary in the sense that the Son proceeds (goes forth) from the father alone.

Why are you using "proceeds (goes forth)" to describe the Son?
Because the Son goes forth from the the father. That is to proceed. The Son I first said to proceed theologically and thenceforth is substantiated as to how this entails that he can be called "begotten". But yet this is one action and this they are not spoken of separately. Aquinas says "For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin"

So "begetting" is just a name attached to a particular instance of "proceeding" only because the result of that "procession" is something named "Son"? 

If the Spirit too has this relation then the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused thus it is necessary that the Spirit also proceed from the son.

And yet you seem to equate procession and begetting when it comes to the Son. 

In any case, I'm not sure how the Son and the Holy Spirit are confused if they come from the Father alone.  One is begotten and the other proceeds.  Each has a different "name".  We are able to tell them apart.  How come you can't? 

Because the Angelic doctor shows without any doubt[ that :

"the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

What is this?  "Proceeds by way of the intellect" vs "proceeds by way of the will"?  You claimed that the East sans Filioque tended toward modalism, but what is this if not modalism? 

We derive a knowledge of the same truth from the very order of nature itself. For we nowhere find that several things proceed from one without order except in those which differ only by their matter; as for instance one smith produces many knives distinct from each other materially, with no order to each other; whereas in things in which there is not only a material distinction we always find that some order exists in the multitude produced. Hence also in the order of creatures produced, the beauty of the divine wisdom is displayed. So if from the one Person of the Father, two persons proceed, the Son and the Holy Ghost, there must be some order between them. Nor can any other be assigned except the order of their nature, whereby one is from the other. Therefore it cannot be said that the Son and the Holy Ghost proceed from the Father in such a way as that neither of them proceeds from the other, unless we admit in them a material distinction; which is impossible.

Hence also the Greeks themselves recognize that the procession of the Holy Ghost has some order to the Son. For they grant that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit "of the Son"; and that He is from the Father "through the Son." Some of them are said also to concede that "He is from the Son"; or that "He flows from the Son," but not that He proceeds; which seems to come from ignorance or obstinacy. For a just consideration of the truth will convince anyone that the word procession is the one most commonly applied to all that denotes origin of any kind. For we use the term to describe any kind of origin; as when we say that a line proceeds from a point, a ray from the sun, a stream from a source, and likewise in everything else. Hence, granted that the Holy Ghost originates in any way from the Son, we can conclude that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

When the Holy Ghost is said to rest or abide in the Son, it does not mean that He does not proceed from Him; for the Son also is said to abide in the Father, although He proceeds from the Father. Also the Holy Ghost is said to rest in the Son as the love of the lover abides in the beloved; or in reference to the human nature of Christ, by reason of what is written: "On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, He it is who baptizes" (John 1:33).

For the reason that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father perfectly, not only is it not superfluous to say He proceeds from the Son, but rather it is absolutely necessary. Forasmuch as one power belongs to the Father and the Son; and because whatever is from the Father, must be from the Son unless it be opposed to the property of filiation; for the Son is not from Himself, although He is from the Father.

The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other as explained above

Why does the Father emanate two persons, and the Son emanate one person, but the Spirit emanates none? 
Imagine HuffPo reporting any religious thingy in a good light!
Few can since they never do.

Well, the owner is Orthodox so...

Is that why her husband went 'gay'?
She practices Orthodoxy as much as a demons work at virtues.
Orthodoxy is not genetic so you cannot get it by being Greek alone, no matter what they say.

Why you find it necessary to trash talk is a mystery to me.
But to clarify, Michael Huffington was/is bisexual. He became Orthodox on his own as far as I can tell.
Here is a post of his on Huffington":

I apologize for trash talking you as you were not my intention for harming. It was Rather to indicate the irony, via humor, that the virtuous person she may have been had she stuck with the Greek Orthodox principles would not have landed her in such a situation as having sex with a man that has sex with other men. Of corse there is no guarantee with Orthodoxy but I am under the impression there is a Warentee.
My dear girl, you are to tender for such a place as this but I trust such exposure to the rough and tumble will harden you to the barbarians such as myself which occupy.
Again, my apologies.
Full disclosure: If that rag had any redeeming value, I would be surprised. Now I will read your referenced site
Well I am wrong; this article, though in the negative, except about himself, does have redeeming value. Thanks.
Religious Topics / Sad times
« Last post by andrewlya on Today at 01:16:58 PM »
While Isis are wiping Christians out in parts of the Middle East the West is standing by and letting it happen...
Other Topics / Re: W.A.G.-word association game
« Last post by Maria on Today at 01:14:24 PM »
Lord have mercy.
Religious Topics / Re: Easter and Passover
« Last post by andrewlya on Today at 01:14:10 PM »
Why did Church separate from the Jewish Passover when Yeshua's sacrificed His life at the time of Passover,hence Easter and Passover...

What is Easter? 

...should coincide every year, shouldn't it.

Not necessarily.
Still my question has not been answered.

If Jesus's Resurrection happened to take place at the same time as the Jewish Passover, why would Christian's Pasha/Easter fall on a different date to Jewish Passover??
Oriental Orthodox Discussion / Re: Oriental Orthodox Picture of the Day
« Last post by rakovsky on Today at 01:11:06 PM »
Two humor videos:

They use humor all over the place and have an actor for Pope Leo in a shiny robe.

Oh yeah, linking us to videos entitled "Monophysitism" and surrounded by ads full of Japanese cartoons with big breasts and little clothes, oh yes, that's very nice.  I'm really convinced you are our friend.   


Religious Topics / Re: Atheism making strides
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Today at 01:02:40 PM »
I deny a literal resurrection simply because it collapses on its own terms for reasons I have said elsewhere in greater detail, and more importantly for the reasons I mentioned above: it is lacking in explanatory worth, it leads to not having any interesting or enriching questions, it cannot endure scrutiny with regards to how the gospel texts were generated and preserved. In short it minimizes, undercuts faith and the gospel message.

What is "faith" and "the gospel message" to you?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »