Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
41
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion / Re: formerly orthodox?
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Today at 02:55:46 PM »
Driven from the Lutherans and Episcopalians, and yourself (it goes without saying), yet not reaching Orthodoxy. A state of limbo. Lord, have mercy.
42
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion / Re: formerly orthodox?
« Last post by Daedelus1138 on Today at 02:48:45 PM »
So you overlook those images the Gospel paints of Jesus as a stern judge who sought on many occasions to uphold the Law and commanded us to repent of sin? 

This says more about your own psychological insecurities to me, that you choose to emphasize this aspect of Jesus' personality.  It screams "authoritarian control freak".

Nothing I have read here convinces me of the truth of the Eastern Orthodox faith.  In fact just the opposite.  In the name of civility, I think that's all I have to say on the matter.
43
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Keep the Filioque
« Last post by Cavaradossi on Today at 02:47:20 PM »
Quote
Which Orthodox Christians deny from the Father through the Son?
Ialmisry stated above he did not believe it. Historically, there has always been a party in Constantinople that denied eternal procession of the Spirit and claimed the Fathers spoke only of temporal mission. This is admitted by Orthodox and other ecclesiastical historians.

Perhaps we have read different historians, but after Blachernae and the vindication of St. Gregory Palamas a few centuries after that, the belief of a purely temporal relationship between the Son and Spirit was no longer possible, as it had become an official point of doctrine that the Son eternally manifests the Spirit. That some previously thought otherwise should be of no consequence, since it is also true that some Latins historically seemed to teach a distinction between how the Spirit proceeds from the Father and how the Spirit proceeds from the Son (implying two principles). What needs to be addressed is the official position taken by both sides, as it is fallacious to argue against historical perspectives rather than actual points of doctrine. It might be fruitful to investigate why those ideas fell out of favor, but you should be careful not to pass historical positions which fell out of favor after a synodal ruling officially accepted a rival theory as being official positions of some confessional body.

You also didn't define precisely what you mean by cause. You have to use terms carefully when we are speaking of the inner life of the Godhead.

I find this somewhat tortuous, I must admit, this idea that cause must be carefully defined. Since at least the time of St. Basil the Great, cause in trinitarian theology has been understood to mean priority in a logical sense and (obviously) not in a temporal sense.

To say the Latins don't understand theology is far from the truth.

Far better to point out that they were ignorant of Greek, and thus could not recognize the difference between verbs like εκπορευεσθαι, προιεναι, εκχειν, κτλ. The Latins were capable of good philosophical inquiry, but on this matter, they were mistaken, being impoverished from their lack of access to the Greek Fathers in the original Greek.

The Catholic Greeks who returned to or at least sincerely desired union with the Holy See understood this well and professed to believe what Rome had always believed and professed.


The heretical Greeks, you mean, gobbled up the Latin party line, and received generous worldly accommodations for it (just look at Bessarion). But they were always few in number for the fact that they could convince so very few to abandon the doctrines of the Greek Fathers for the innovations of some late Medieval Latins.

The dissident Greeks didn't and don't understand Catholic theology and have departed from the teaching of their own Fathers.

The Catholic Greeks you mean, confessed the truth, and held fast to the doctrine of the Fathers both East and West. It is telling, for example, that the only party which wished to make use of St. Maximus' letter to Marinus as the grounds for reconciliation at Florence was the Greek party. The Latins could not accept it, because their doctrines had become so alien to the doctrines of the Fathers.

St. Thomas Aquinas had already expressed the complementarity of the formulations "from the Father through the Son" and "from the Father and the Son" explaining the Filioque is absolutely necessary to preserve distinction of Person and unity of Essence in the consubstantial Trinity.

He asserted that, it is true, but that he demonstrated it to be true is far from self-evident. It could also very well be the case that two formulae are complimentary in the sense give by St. Maximus in his letter to Marinus.

The Holy Ghost could not be distinguished from the Son if both came forth from the Father without an eternal relationship between them, as St. Isidore had said long ago.

Other saints, notably, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John of Damascus explicitly denied this, noting that the mode of origination differs between the two, which is why one mode is more properly called γεννηθηναι and the other εκπορευεσθαι. Unlike the Latins, the Greek Fathers did not regard the two as being perfect and indistinct processions (only distinguishable by their source), but as being the personal acts of one hypostasis (the Father) causing the others.

Therefore, there is an eternal relationship between the Son and the Spirit

We agree so far.

and this consists in the fact that the Son receives as proper to His Person from the Father that the Spirit proceeds also from Him. If you deny that the Father and the Son communicate consubstantial divinity to the Spirit in the ineffable eternal act of procession or spiration, you deny the plain teaching of Scripture and Tradition above.

And here we disagree. Firstly, Scripture has it from the mouth of the Lord himself that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Secondly, you then inaccurately have stated above that the Son has a relation to the Holy Spirit. That is manifestly false because in the Latin digmatic scheme of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son as one principle, the Son only relates to the Spirit insofar as the Son forms a unity with the Father, which is to say that the Son does not truly have an eternal relationship with the Spirit, but rather that the Father and the Son have an eternal relationship with the Holy Spirit.

This leads directly into Vladimir Lossky's criticism that the Filioque prevents there from being any absolute diversity of the trinitarian persons, because rather than yielding a triad which is also a monad in its relation to one cause, the Filioque yields two dyadic-monadic structures, a Father-Son dyad which collapses (because the dyad is inherently unstable) into a monad in its relation to the Holy Spirit, yielding yet another dyad, a (Father-Son)-Holy Spirit dyad (where the Father and the Son have fallen back into a monad, relating to the Holy Spirit not personally but as an impersonal unity of persons). This dyad in turn collapses into another impersonal unity in the relation of the Trinity to creation. The Orthodox system, by contrast prevents this consequence by not positing opposition as the foundation of the absolute diversity of the divine persons, but rather by understanding that this is a consequence of their unique relations.

Thus the Father as Cause causes the Son and Holy Spirit by two distinct manners of origination (begetting and procession), while also establishing the foundation of the unique eternal relationship between the Spirit and the Son by bestowing the Spirit upon the Son from all eternity (as in the Augustinian analogy of the Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son). Hence the Son is uniquely anointed from all eternity and uniquely manifests the Holy Spirit, while the Spirit uniquely rests upon the Son. It is in this sense that we should understand how the Son has a role in the procession of the Holy Spirit, not as cause, for the Father alone communicates hypostatic being and divinity to the Holy Spirit, but as the eternally anointed Who from eternity does not keep His gift to Himself, but rather manifests it, such that by establishing from eternity the principles (logoi) which govern the creation which He foreknew, He determines the eternal ek-stasis of the Divinity, which is the eternal love of the Creator for His pre-existent creation and the eternal outpouring the the Holy Spirit as this divine love for His beloved creation.
44
Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion / Re: Are we to tithe 10%?
« Last post by LenInSebastopol on Today at 02:41:51 PM »
The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start.

And as in this exchange, a better place to end.
45
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Keep the Filioque
« Last post by Mor Ephrem on Today at 02:39:17 PM »
Is the Son eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit?  If not, why not?

No as the property to beget is of the Father alone. It is why he is called the Father.

But the claim above was that the Spirit needs to proceed from Father and Son in order to preserve the distinction of persons.  If the Spirit must come from the Father and the Son in order for that distinction to be preserved, how come the Son doesn't need to come from the Father and the Spirit?  "Begetter"/"begotten" would seem only to address the relationship between two of the persons, it says nothing about the third.  How is the third distinct from the second? 
46
Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion / Re: Are we to tithe 10%?
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Today at 02:39:14 PM »
The Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start.
47
Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion / Re: Are we to tithe 10%?
« Last post by LenInSebastopol on Today at 02:32:00 PM »
If you believe in harnessing the greed of mankind, then why don't we harness the violence of mankind? the despondency of mankind? the blasphemy of mankind? Would you be in favor of a legal system that promotes any of these vices and elevates it to the basis for a society? If not, why not?

That aside, I'm surprised to see you making arguments against virtues in the Church based on "inevitable" sins in the world.

Your thought process is way higher than mine, so I can't respond to some of what you write.
It is not my belief in harnessing the greed, it is an observation to be the proper outlet in the world we live. In one's garage when one improves on the mousetrap, the market will find the right price, then all may benefit. Please, spare me the complexity, but if you cannot, we can take all of that to an appropriate thread.
We do sublimate so many of our passions as in terms of violence with soccer, football, basketball and other sports. Those outlets do allow for the worst of sins: pride, envy, competition, anger etc.
Our despondencies create music, a great outlet, as well as other art forms. Though they are not a "relief" or salvation in Church terms, they do improve the human condition and when beautiful they also agree with that old Russian guy, "Beauty will save the world".
Again, my pay grade precludes me from understanding your "blasphemy of mankind".
I didn't know I was arguing against virtues, and I apologize for doing so.
What I am poorly attempting at is what I understand to be, in an existential way, is finding my way in this morass with Church principles applied. This is the world I find, and though I may gain the right one someday soon, my feeble attempt to add 2+2 does not add up to 4, obviously.
One of the few things I know about this world is that socialism=fascism=communism and all of them come straight out of Hell via The Devil himself. Any and all deviation from knowing that is simply a slide back to sin for peoples.
48
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion / Re: formerly orthodox?
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Today at 02:31:16 PM »
“Whatever the soul may think fit to do itself, whatever care and pains it may take, relying only upon its own power, and thinking to be able to effect a perfect success by itself, without the co-operation of the Spirit, it is greatly mistaken. It is of no use for the heavenly places; it is of no use for the kingdom – that soul, which supposes that it can achieve perfect purity of itself, and by itself alone, without the Spirit. Unless the man who is under the influence of the passions will come to God, denying the world, and will believe with patience and hope to receive a good thing foreign to his own nature, namely the power of the Holy Spirit, and unless the Lord shall drop upon the soul from on high the life of the Godhead, such a man will never experience true life, will never recover from the drunkenness of materialism; the enlightenment of the Spirit will never shine in that benighted soul, or kindle in it a holy daytime; it will never awake out of that deepest sleep of ignorance, and so come to know God of a truth through God’s power and the efficacy of grace.”
St. Macarius the Great, Spiritual Homilies, Homily 24

Yes, one of the best-kept secrets in America, that one cannot expect to make spiritual sense on one's own.
49
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion / Re: formerly orthodox?
« Last post by Alxandra on Today at 02:26:40 PM »
“Whatever the soul may think fit to do itself, whatever care and pains it may take, relying only upon its own power, and thinking to be able to effect a perfect success by itself, without the co-operation of the Spirit, it is greatly mistaken. It is of no use for the heavenly places; it is of no use for the kingdom – that soul, which supposes that it can achieve perfect purity of itself, and by itself alone, without the Spirit. Unless the man who is under the influence of the passions will come to God, denying the world, and will believe with patience and hope to receive a good thing foreign to his own nature, namely the power of the Holy Spirit, and unless the Lord shall drop upon the soul from on high the life of the Godhead, such a man will never experience true life, will never recover from the drunkenness of materialism; the enlightenment of the Spirit will never shine in that benighted soul, or kindle in it a holy daytime; it will never awake out of that deepest sleep of ignorance, and so come to know God of a truth through God’s power and the efficacy of grace.”
St. Macarius the Great, Spiritual Homilies, Homily 24
50
Orthodox-Catholic Discussion / Re: Keep the Filioque
« Last post by Porter ODoran on Today at 02:20:38 PM »
You're limiting him to begetter. (And lowering the Spirit into a more-removed relationship to him.) But nice sophistical dodge.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »