OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 02:50:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque... in the East?  (Read 18407 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« on: September 09, 2008, 09:14:43 AM »

Is this true?

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

"…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Lamy, "Concilium Seleucia", Louvain, 1868).
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2008, 09:43:28 AM »

^ In what context did you find the above statement?
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2008, 09:47:46 AM »

^ In what context did you find the above statement?

In a discussion concerning the Filioque's legitimacy.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2008, 10:00:26 AM »

In a discussion concerning the Filioque's legitimacy.

OK, how about a paragraph or 2 or 3 from the source which contains the supposed "Filoque" clause so that people can see the text before and after that clause.  After all, anyone can find one line in the religious texts posted on the Internet.
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2008, 10:12:47 AM »

In a discussion concerning the Filioque's legitimacy.

OK, how about a paragraph or 2 or 3 from the source which contains the supposed "Filoque" clause so that people can see the text before and after that clause.  After all, anyone can find one line in the religious texts posted on the Internet.

I don't have this document or book so I can't offer anymore than what the poster offered but with all the fuss about the Filioque I honestly doubt this is in support of it from the East.

Actually I did find a reference to it... http://books.google.com/books?id=PHmvLH3sL8gC&pg=PA432&lpg=PA432&dq=Lamy,+%22Concilium+Seleucia%22,+Louvain,+1868&source=web&ots=gCS98AbXvR&sig=PNRde9eVP8Vpm4-QeToT5bfitOo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 10:21:02 AM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2008, 10:13:21 AM »

The only Council of Seleucia that I know of was held in 359, of which this source provides an abstract:

Quote
Chapter XXII.—Of the Council held at Seleucia in Isauria.

After a time, at the suggestion of the accusers of Eudoxius, Constantius ordered the synod to be held at Seleucia. This town of Isauria lies on the seashore and is the chief town of the district. Hither the bishops of the East, and with them those of Pontus in Asia, were ordered to assemble.


This council dealt with Arianism and Semiarianism, but not Sabellianism.

Maybe there was a Council at Seleucia in 410, but my research has not uncovered it. Please forward here any references mentioned in the other debate!
Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2008, 10:32:10 AM »

Is this true?

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

"…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Lamy, "Concilium Seleucia", Louvain, 1868).

No, it isn't true. The translation is false.

First, as a side note, "Council of Seleucia" in 410 was a council of Assyrian Church, which was about to left communion as from Ephesus 431. So we can rightfully doubt it was ever a recognized local council.

Second, but more important, is that the original wording of it (in, I believe, Partian language) doesn't refer to "procession" in the meaning of eternal procession or "ekporeusis" (sp?) within Holy Trinity, than to temporal, economic procession, to sending of Holy Spirit in time to us. So it wouldn't be "filioque", than "per fillium".

I avail this opportunity to again thank to Apotheoun, whom explained the issue in depth both at catholic forums before we were purged from there, on his site and here. I think the above explanation should be attributed to him (though I might read something similar from other sources, too).
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2008, 12:17:30 PM »

Since it is prohibited to post links to another fora here, I suggest you conduct google search after "filioque seleucia", whre the first result will be a catholic forum (hint: many of us were expelled from there in what's known as pogrom of orthodox at catholic forum, described here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13287.0.html) and there is a post there
Quote
#387
Old  Aug 27, '08, 4:15 pm
ronyodish

There is an Aramaic word for "proceeds" which shows up in the Aramaic Peshitta Bible in John 15:26:
ܢܦܩ "npq", which is pronounced by Chaldeans as: "napeq"

The above word does not show up in the Aramaic Creed of 410. Rather, the Creed simply has this: "dmin", that is: "who(is) from".

See also: http://www.geocities.com/apotheoun/paper17b (Apotheoun's site on filioque - BTW he is an Eastern Catholic)
and http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/filioque.html
and excellent orthodox resource.

Hope this helps.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2008, 12:18:23 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2008, 10:16:22 PM »

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

Is there any evidence to deny this?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2008, 12:18:34 AM »

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

Is there any evidence to deny this?

Where could we start?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2008, 12:32:16 AM »

The only Council of Seleucia that I know of was held in 359, of which this source provides an abstract:

Quote
Chapter XXII.—Of the Council held at Seleucia in Isauria.

After a time, at the suggestion of the accusers of Eudoxius, Constantius ordered the synod to be held at Seleucia. This town of Isauria lies on the seashore and is the chief town of the district. Hither the bishops of the East, and with them those of Pontus in Asia, were ordered to assemble.


This council dealt with Arianism and Semiarianism, but not Sabellianism.

Maybe there was a Council at Seleucia in 410, but my research has not uncovered it. Please forward here any references mentioned in the other debate!


courtesy of Ronyodish (gyanukh basimta laugh):
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=TK0AAAAAMAAJ&dq=Three+Letters+of+Philoxenus&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=CtR0Jjbg9R&sig=JXCvKngwWpNpu6flFpf9udOTb24&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA76,M1
The problem is that there is no verb in the sentence (the actual source of the problem with filioque), and "men" means both "from" and "through" so "proceeds from the Father through the Son," would be phrased naturally the same.  Analytic constructions would have to be had.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2008, 04:31:05 AM »

The Church Fathers did not make a distinction between the way the Spirit is manifested on earth from its eternal origin. That distinction was only made after the Schism.

Is there any evidence to deny this?

There is plenty of evidence to deny it.

First, it is Christ's promise in New Testament that he sents Paracletos. And He is not Son only, He is man too, GodMan. And it was done in time, when He was on Earth.

Second, there is no mention in the Bible about eternal procession between Son and Holy Spirit, the procession that existed before God created time. God hasn't revealed to us that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Son too.

Third, Holy Fathers needed to address various errors caused by application of phylosophical systems (a.k.a. "human wisdom") to Christ's message, but the error of double procession simply hasn't been present. The only one who expressed it, puzzled by neoplatonic system of Plotin was blessed Augustine, a bishop of Hippo. But his writings were in Latin, he had poor command of Greek, his teaching was unknown outside his diocese, and he asked many times in his writings to be corrected for any error he expressed, since he knew he wasn't infallable.

Finally, explicit distinction between eternal and temporal procession could be found in "Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus, and that was before schism. What is important about him is that he hasn't introduced any novelty in his remarkable work - there was nothing there which is his own, he only expressed what's been believed "by all, everywhere and always". I can't look for link now, do your own research to find appropriate link, it's expressed by gathering his quotations from two or three chapters in "Exact exposition...".
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,913


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2008, 04:47:59 AM »

"Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus:

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2008, 06:41:22 AM »

This statement
Quote
The Father and Son spirate the Spirit. They are one in being, so it is spiration from one principle.

implies that, following that reasoning, Holy Spirit would have to "Sonate" Son, along with Father, while Holy Spirit and Son would have to "Fatherate" Father. That all following the reasoning "They are one in being."

BTW, it is said Holy Trinity is three in hypostases and one in nature. The term "being" isn't necessarily what was meant, particularly having in mind none of them knew English (well, except St. Patrick and Pelagius).
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 06:42:04 AM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2008, 02:20:22 PM »

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2008, 03:11:06 PM »

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.
Who's anthony020702? Huh
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2008, 03:20:59 PM »

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.
Who's anthony020702? Huh

The gentleman in question is a Roman Catholic Apologists on Catholic-Answers Forum who is currently debating a few posters who are happen to also be members 'here'.  Grin
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2008, 03:26:31 PM »

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.
Who's anthony020702? Huh

The gentleman in question is a Roman Catholic Apologists on Catholic-Answers Forum who is currently debating a few posters who are happen to also be members 'here'.  Grin

roafl. I haven't had impression about him being an apologist!
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2008, 05:27:34 PM »

And, of course, those who debate with anthony020702, should request link to the texts he quote, for he is known to falsify quotes.
Who's anthony020702? Huh

The gentleman in question is a Roman Catholic Apologists on Catholic-Answers Forum who is currently debating a few posters who are happen to also be members 'here'.  Grin


roafl. I haven't had impression about him being an apologist!

Cutter and paster draftsman?
« Last Edit: September 11, 2008, 05:29:02 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2008, 06:00:47 PM »

Let us all try to stay on topic here and not start a discussion about the posting habits of some user on another forum.

Thank you.

-- Friul
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Zarabas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 26

We must seek out heresy within ourselves...


« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2008, 09:28:37 AM »

Is this true?

In the East,the doctrine was expressed in the creed of the Council of Seleucia,410:

"…the Holy Living Spirit, the Holy Living Paraclete, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Lamy, "Concilium Seleucia", Louvain, 1868).

No, it isn't true. The translation is false.

First, as a side note, "Council of Seleucia" in 410 was a council of Assyrian Church, which was about to left communion as from Ephesus 431. So we can rightfully doubt it was ever a recognized local council.

Second, but more important, is that the original wording of it (in, I believe, Partian language) doesn't refer to "procession" in the meaning of eternal procession or "ekporeusis" (sp?) within Holy Trinity, than to temporal, economic procession, to sending of Holy Spirit in time to us. So it wouldn't be "filioque", than "per fillium".

I avail this opportunity to again thank to Apotheoun, whom explained the issue in depth both at catholic forums before we were purged from there, on his site and here. I think the above explanation should be attributed to him (though I might read something similar from other sources, too).

I agree since there is other areas whereby the Roman Catholics have presented forgeries to confirm their heresie.
Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2008, 10:39:27 PM »

Quote
Second, but more important, is that the original wording of it (in, I believe, Partian language) doesn't refer to "procession" in the meaning of eternal procession or "ekporeusis" (sp?) within Holy Trinity, than to temporal, economic procession, to sending of Holy Spirit in time to us. So it wouldn't be "filioque", than "per fillium".

The Church Fathers never distinguished between the way the Spirit is manifested in time from the way it is manifested in eternity. That distinction was made only after the Schism. The manifestation of the Spirit in heaven is the same as it is on earth - through the Son.

St. Cyril of Alexandria says that the Spirit that Jesus manifested was not foreign to him,but was his own.

St. Cyril of Alexandria:
"We must not say that the one Lord Jesus Christ has been glorified by the Spirit, in such a way as to suggest that through the Spirit He made use of a power foreign to Himself, and from the Spirit received the ability to work against unclean spirits, and to perform Divine signs among men; but must rather say that the Spirit, through Whom He did indeed work His Divine signs, is His own. [The Twelve Errors, Error 9, 430 A.D.]

"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father.  …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)

Before the Council of Seleucia, St. Epiphanius said that the Spirit proceeds from the Son:
"No one knows the Spirit, besides the Father, except the Son, from Whom He proceeds (proienai) and of Whom He receives." (Panarion,xi)

The word proienai is equivalent in meaning to the word procedit. It's meaning is not limited to temporal manifestation. 

« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 10:59:38 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2008, 10:40:26 PM »

Energetic Procession (an Orthodox blog run by Perry Robinson and Photios Jones) is a good source of information on the "filioque."  

Below is a link to an article entitled "St. Maximos the Confessor and the Filioque Doctrine" that touches on the distinction between the Spirit's eternal origination (ekporeusis) as person, which is from the Father alone, and the manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) of the Spirit's energies, which is from the Father through the Son.
  
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2006/12/03/st-maximus-the-conffesor-and-the-filioque-doctrine-part-i/
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 10:41:07 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2008, 12:04:07 AM »

Quote
There is plenty of evidence to deny it.

First, it is Christ's promise in New Testament that he sents Paracletos. And He is not Son only, He is man too, GodMan. And it was done in time, when He was on Earth.

The Paraclete is the "Spirit of the Son" as well as the "Spirit of the Father". Christ is the Son in eternity as well as on earth,and he has the Spirit from eternity.

Quote
Second, there is no mention in the Bible about eternal procession between Son and Holy Spirit, the procession that existed before God created time. God hasn't revealed to us that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Son too.


There is mention of the procession of the Spirit from the Son in the writings of the Church Fathers. Catholics and Orthodox don't go on sola scriptura.

This passage shows that Christ had the Spirit from eternity.

"The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow." (1 Peter 1:11)

Quote
Third, Holy Fathers needed to address various errors caused by application of phylosophical systems (a.k.a. "human wisdom") to Christ's message, but the error of double procession simply hasn't been present.


It isn't a matter of double procession,unless the Father and Son are considered as if they were separated. The Father and Son are one in being,breathing the same Spirit which unites them in love.

Quote
The only one who expressed it, puzzled by neoplatonic system of Plotin was blessed Augustine, a bishop of Hippo. But his writings were in Latin, he had poor command of Greek, his teaching was unknown outside his diocese, and he asked many times in his writings to be corrected for any error he expressed, since he knew he wasn't infallable.

Augustine didn't get the filioque doctrine from Plotinus. It had already been  expressed by Epiphanius,Hilary and Ambrose.

Quote
Finally, explicit distinction between eternal and temporal procession could be found in "Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus, and that was before schism. What is important about him is that he hasn't introduced any novelty in his remarkable work - there was nothing there which is his own, he only expressed what's been believed "by all, everywhere and always". I can't look for link now, do your own research to find appropriate link, it's expressed by gathering his quotations from two or three chapters in "Exact exposition...".

"Through the Word, the Father produces the Spirit, who manifests him (dia logou proboleus ekphantorikou Pneumatos)…The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father making secrets of the deity known and proceeding from the Father through the Son in a way that he knows, but which is not begetting…The Father is source of the Son and the Holy Spirit....The Spirit is not the Son of the Father, he is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from him (ekporeuomenon),…but he is also Spirit of the Son, not as (proceeding) from him, but proceeding through him from the Father. Only the Father is cause (aitios)." (John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, I:12) 

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him." (John of Damascus, Against the Manicheans)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 12:43:53 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2008, 12:12:04 AM »

"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son." Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, The Holy Spirit, 37 (ante A.D. 381).
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 12:19:15 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 9,913


ΠΑΝΑΓΙΑ ΣΟΥΜΕΛΑ


« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2008, 07:50:08 AM »

Post #23 is a real stretch, but then we're used to that with this topic.

Post #24 - if that's Orthodox and held throughout the Church (at any time), I'm visiting the nearest Baptist church.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2008, 01:53:11 PM »

The word proienai is equivalent in meaning to the word procedit. It's meaning is not limited to temporal manifestation.
Sadly the Latins, by mistranslating the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai with a single Latin word procedere, have caused a false equivalence between two distinct theological realities.  As a consequence, they have confused the Spirit's eternal existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person (hypostasis), which is only from the Father, since the Father alone is cause (aitia) within the Godhead; with the Spirit's eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia), but not as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father through the Son. 

Ultimately, no matter what the Latins presently believe: the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His proienai from the Father through the Son are not the same thing.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2008, 04:06:28 PM »

Quote
Sadly the Latins, by mistranslating the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai with a single Latin word procedere, have caused a false equivalence between two distinct theological realities.  As a consequence, they have confused the Spirit's eternal existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person (hypostasis), which is only from the Father, since the Father alone is cause (aitia) within the Godhead; with the Spirit's eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia), but not as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father through the Son. 


The Spirit's existential procession as person is not only from the Father,because the Son is one with the Father,has what he has and does what he does. If the Spirit's eternal procession is separate from the Son,then there would be division within the Trinity. But the Spirit is always with the Son,so there is no reason to think that his existential procession is separated from the Son.
The Spirit is manifested on earth in person,not merely as energy. God is not de-personalized.

St Cyril of Alexandria:
"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father.  …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)

St Epiphanius:
"The Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, ... proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son, not foreign to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, He is with the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit ever subsisting, Spirit Divine, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. ... He is Third in appellation, equal in Divinity, not different as compared to Father and Son, connecting Bond of the Trinity, Ratifying Seal of the Creed. (Panarion)

Quote
Ultimately, no matter what the Latins presently believe: the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His proienai from the Father through the Son are not the same thing.

Catholic theology doesn't hold that ekporeusis and proienai are the same thing.
But neither is it true that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation.

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2008, 04:25:52 PM »

"Our Lord teaches that the being of the Spirit is derived not from the Spirit Himself, but from the Father and the Son; He goes forth from the Son, proceeding from the Truth; He has no subsistence but that which is given Him by the Son." Didymus the Blind of Alexandria, The Holy Spirit, 37 (ante A.D. 381).
Roll Eyes
Any links to the WHOLE work?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 04:42:46 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2008, 04:40:32 PM »

Quote
Sadly the Latins, by mistranslating the Greek words ekporeusis and proienai with a single Latin word procedere, have caused a false equivalence between two distinct theological realities.  As a consequence, they have confused the Spirit's eternal existential procession (ekporeusis) of origin as person (hypostasis), which is only from the Father, since the Father alone is cause (aitia) within the Godhead; with the Spirit's eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia), but not as person (hypostasis), which is from the Father through the Son. 


The Spirit's existential procession as person is not only from the Father,because the Son is one with the Father,has what he has and does what he does. If the Spirit's eternal procession is separate from the Son,then there would be division within the Trinity. But the Spirit is always with the Son,so there is no reason to think that his existential procession is separated from the Son.
The Spirit is manifested on earth in person,not merely as energy. God is not de-personalized.
So the Father and Son are one Person.

Quote
St Cyril of Alexandria:
"For although the Spirit is the same essence, yet we think of Him by Himself, as He is the Spirit and not the Son; but He is not unconnected with Him [the Son]; for He is called the Spirit of Truth and Christ is the Truth, and He is sent by Him just as He is from God the Father.  …Since, therefore, He is the Spirit of the Power and Wisdom of the Father, that is, of the Son, He is evidently Wisdom and Power. (Epist., xvii, Ad Nestorium, De excommunicatione in P.G., LXXVII, 117)

St Epiphanius:
"The Spirit is always with the Father and the Son, ... proceeding from the Father and receiving of the Son, not foreign to the Father and the Son, but of the same substance, of the same Godhead, of the Father and the Son, He is with the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit ever subsisting, Spirit Divine, Spirit of glory, Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Father. ... He is Third in appellation, equal in Divinity, not different as compared to Father and Son, connecting Bond of the Trinity, Ratifying Seal of the Creed. (Panarion)

Quote
Ultimately, no matter what the Latins presently believe: the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His proienai from the Father through the Son are not the same thing.

Catholic theology doesn't hold that ekporeusis and proienai are the same thing.
But neither is it true that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation.


Then what is it expanded to?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2008, 04:45:53 PM »

Quote
There is plenty of evidence to deny it.

First, it is Christ's promise in New Testament that he sents Paracletos. And He is not Son only, He is man too, GodMan. And it was done in time, when He was on Earth.

The Paraclete is the "Spirit of the Son" as well as the "Spirit of the Father". Christ is the Son in eternity as well as on earth,and he has the Spirit from eternity.

Quote
Second, there is no mention in the Bible about eternal procession between Son and Holy Spirit, the procession that existed before God created time. God hasn't revealed to us that Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from Son too.


There is mention of the procession of the Spirit from the Son in the writings of the Church Fathers. Catholics and Orthodox don't go on sola scriptura.

This passage shows that Christ had the Spirit from eternity.

"The prophets investigated the times and the circumstances which the Spirit of Christ within them was pointing to, for he predicted the sufferings destined for Christ and the glories that would follow." (1 Peter 1:11)

Quote
Third, Holy Fathers needed to address various errors caused by application of phylosophical systems (a.k.a. "human wisdom") to Christ's message, but the error of double procession simply hasn't been present.


It isn't a matter of double procession,unless the Father and Son are considered as if they were separated. The Father and Son are one in being,breathing the same Spirit which unites them in love.

Quote
The only one who expressed it, puzzled by neoplatonic system of Plotin was blessed Augustine, a bishop of Hippo. But his writings were in Latin, he had poor command of Greek, his teaching was unknown outside his diocese, and he asked many times in his writings to be corrected for any error he expressed, since he knew he wasn't infallable.

Augustine didn't get the filioque doctrine from Plotinus. It had already been  expressed by Epiphanius,Hilary and Ambrose.

Quote
Finally, explicit distinction between eternal and temporal procession could be found in "Exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith" by St. John of Damascus, and that was before schism. What is important about him is that he hasn't introduced any novelty in his remarkable work - there was nothing there which is his own, he only expressed what's been believed "by all, everywhere and always". I can't look for link now, do your own research to find appropriate link, it's expressed by gathering his quotations from two or three chapters in "Exact exposition...".

"Through the Word, the Father produces the Spirit, who manifests him (dia logou proboleus ekphantorikou Pneumatos)…The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father making secrets of the deity known and proceeding from the Father through the Son in a way that he knows, but which is not begetting…The Father is source of the Son and the Holy Spirit....The Spirit is not the Son of the Father, he is the Spirit of the Father, as proceeding from him (ekporeuomenon),…but he is also Spirit of the Son, not as (proceeding) from him, but proceeding through him from the Father. Only the Father is cause (aitios)." (John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, I:12) 

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him." (John of Damascus, Against the Manicheans)


I can't remember if it was here or on another forum ( Roll Eyes) where I went through the trouble ( police) of providing the full quotes to these snipets, showing how ORTHODOX these Fathers are.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2008, 05:20:52 PM »

The Spirit's existential procession as person is not only from the Father, because the Son is one with the Father, has what he has and does what he does.
Sadly you are confusing person and nature.  The Father and the Son are one in nature, but the Holy Spirit is also one in nature with them; and so, if I accepted your position, it follows that the Spirit would be the cause (aitia) of His own hypostasis, which is utter nonsense.  To put it another way, the theological position that you are advocating ultimately leads either to Sabellian Modalism, because it involves confounding the hypostatic uniqueness of the Father and the Son by making them into one and the same person / principle (arche), or it leads to subordinationism and ditheism, because it makes the Holy Spirit essentially less than the Father and the Son since He alone (i.e., the Holy Spirit) cannot spirate a divine person, which involves at the same time a denial of His being co-essential with the Father and the Son.  Now, these theological difficulties are quite simply a form of the Pneumatomachian heresy.

If the Spirit's eternal procession is separate from the Son,then there would be division within the Trinity. But the Spirit is always with the Son,so there is no reason to think that his existential procession is separated from the Son.
You are confusing the fact that there is a real distinction between hypostatic origination and energetic manifestation with the idea that there are separations within the Godhead.  But a real distinction (i.e., a pragmatika diakrisis) does not involve a separation (i.e., a pragmatike diaresis), and that you are unaware of this fact is disturbing to say the least.

Spirit is manifested on earth in person, not merely as energy. God is not de-personalized.
Energy is "personal" (i.e., it is enhypostatic), but it is not a person (hypostasis).  The primary error of Latin theology is its failure to distinguish between the Spirit as person and the Spirit as gift (energy).  That said, no man can receive the hypostasis of the Spirit because that would involve a hypostatic union between each individual Christian and the Holy Spirit, but there is only one hypostatic union and that occurred in the incarnation of the eternal Logos.

Catholic theology doesn't hold that ekporeusis and proienai are the same thing.
But neither is it true that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation.
Where in my post did I say that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation?

I said that the Spirit's movement from the Father through the Son concerns ". . . [His] eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia)."
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 05:54:41 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 14, 2008, 05:40:26 PM »

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

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession (ekporeusis) of the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person (hypostasis) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 05:52:31 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #33 on: September 14, 2008, 08:54:45 PM »

Quote
So the Father and Son are one Person.

For being one in being?

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)

The Orthodox often sound like they doubt the consubsantiality doctrine when they argue against the filioque doctrine.

Quote
Then what is it expanded to?

It depends on the context. Proienai just means proceeds. The Church Fathers used it when talking about the internal life of the Trinity.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 01:13:17 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #34 on: September 14, 2008, 11:00:22 PM »

Quote
Sadly you are confusing person and nature.  The Father and the Son are one in nature, but the Holy Spirit is also one in nature with them;


I'm not confusing person and nature. The Father and Son are not only one in nature but one in being,and God as Being is a matter of person. The persons of the Trinity are one Being that we call "He".

Quote
and so, if I accepted your position, it follows that the Spirit would be the cause (aitia) of His own hypostasis, which is utter nonsense.


No,that doesn't follow from my position. The Spirit is caused by the Father and Son,so he is not the cause of his own person.

Quote
To put it another way, the theological position that you are advocating ultimately leads either to Sabellian Modalism, because it involves confounding the hypostatic uniqueness of the Father and the Son by making them into one and the same person / principle (arche),


No,it doesn't confound the uniqueness of the Father and Son,because they are still who they are. One is defined by Fatherhood and the other is defined by Sonship. The persons of the Trinity are collectively one principle,which is why Christian philosophers can call God the first principle.

Quote
or it leads to subordinationism and ditheism, because it makes the Holy Spirit essentially less than the Father and the Son since He alone (i.e., the Holy Spirit) cannot spirate a divine person, which involves at the same time a denial of His being co-essential with the Father and the Son.  Now, these theological difficulties are quite simply a form of the Pneumatomachian heresy.

How does being breathed by the Father and Son as their own Spirit make the Spirit essentially less than they are? On the contrary,it makes the Spirit essentially what they are. But if you believe that the Father alone is cause of the Spirit,then you may as well deny that the Spirit is of the Son,and that the Son eternally has the Spirit of Sonship.

Is St. Basil a heretical subordinationalist when he says that the Spirit is third in dignity?

Quote
You are confusing the fact that there is a real distinction between hypostatic origination and energetic manifestation with the idea that there are separations within the Godhead.  But a real distinction (i.e., a pragmatika diakrisis) does not involve a separation (i.e., a pragmatike diaresis), and that you are unaware of this fact is disturbing to say the least.

If the Son were not connected as person with the eternal origination of the Spirit,then they would be separated in eternity from each other,and there would be three gods with one nature.

Energetic manifestation is not a fact.

Quote
Energy is "personal" (i.e., it is enhypostatic), but it is not a person (hypostasis). 


What is personal about God can't be distinguished from the persons of God without making a separation in God. Where the power and attributes of God are,God is there is person.

Quote
The primary error of Latin theology is its failure to distinguish between the Spirit as person and the Spirit as gift (energy).


The error of Greek theology is assuming there is such a distinction. The Spirit is always a person. If he were not,then he would not be a He,or God. There is no reason to think that the Spirit is shorn of personhood when he is sent as a gift to men. A person who is an eternal spirit can go anywhere.

Quote
That said, no man can receive the hypostasis of the Spirit because that would involve a hypostatic union between each individual Christian and the Holy Spirit, but there is only one hypostatic union and that occurred in the incarnation of the eternal Logos.

Christ was conceived with the hypostatic union. It was who he was intrinsically. Christians are united with God from without. We are not like that intrinsically.  Christ told his apostles that the Spirit (he) would be in them,and he himself would remain in them.

John 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:22 Judas saith to him, not the Iscariot: Lord, how is it, that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the world?

John 14:23 Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.

Quote
Where in my post did I say that proienai is limited to temporal manifestation?

I said that the Spirit's movement from the Father through the Son concerns ". . . [His] eternal progression (proienai) or manifestation (phanerosis) as energy (energeia)."

That would mean that there is division within the Trinity,since the Spirit's energies are separated from his person in the procession,and persons are not being communicated with each other.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2008, 11:14:43 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 14, 2008, 11:11:30 PM »

Quote
Sadly you are confusing person and nature.  The Father and the Son are one in nature, but the Holy Spirit is also one in nature with them;


I'm not confusing person and nature. The Father and Son are not only one in nature but one in being,and God as Being is a matter of person. The persons of the Trinity are one Being that we call "He".

Actually, in terms of Orthodox Theology, you are confusing the terms.
"Being" is the English translation of the original Greek word "Ousia" in the Creed, which means "Essence/being/substance", while "Person" is the English translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" meaning, literally "under (hypo) -standing (stasis)" or "expression". God is one Being/Essence (Ousia) in Three distinct Persons (hypostases).  According to Orthodox theology, the Three Persons are distinct "without confusion", yet con-substantial (sharing the same Substance/Ousia/Essence). And I believe this is the same in Roman Catholic theology.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #36 on: September 15, 2008, 01:29:26 AM »

Quote
Actually, in terms of Orthodox Theology, you are confusing the terms.
"Being" is the English translation of the original Greek word "Ousia" in the Creed, which means "Essence/being/substance", while "Person" is the English translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" meaning, literally "under (hypo) -standing (stasis)" or "expression". God is one Being/Essence (Ousia) in Three distinct Persons (hypostases).  According to Orthodox theology, the Three Persons are distinct "without confusion", yet con-substantial (sharing the same Substance/Ousia/Essence). And I believe this is the same in Roman Catholic theology.

So where is the confusion of nature and person? Catholics agree that God is three distinct persons who are consubstantial,but it is also undeniable that the "Being" of scripture ("Being" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "I Am") is a He,as in a person who can be addressed,rather than just an unknowable essence. God's essence can't be distinguished apart from the persons of God. Persons are essence.

The English word person actually comes from the Latin word persona. Tertullian wrote about the persons of God before the Greek-speaking theologians did.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 01:58:59 AM by anthony022071 » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #37 on: September 15, 2008, 08:53:34 AM »



The English word person actually comes from the Latin word persona. Tertullian wrote about the persons of God before the Greek-speaking theologians did.

Not true. Actually it was the Cappadocian Fathers that made first note about the persona of the trinity. What you are describing is Sabellianism. During the 4th century.  The Westerners were always willing to embrace any form of Sabellianism, while the Easterners insisted that we must definitely keep these three Personae separate. In the 2nd century with the Apologetes, the issue was set out clearly, as follows: The three Personae of the Holy Trinity are “Three in Number”, in the sense of a numeric three; we do not refer to a One, to a unit, which either broadens – as Savellius claimed – and becomes (or takes on) three forms, or which takes in any other external element within the One God; this number of three is located within the very meaning of God. In other words, God never existed alone.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 08:59:16 AM by Demetrios G. » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #38 on: September 15, 2008, 09:40:22 AM »

When Anthony speaks of 'being' is he conflating 'person' into it? He seems to be saying that there is a relationship 'in being' between the Father and the Son which the Holy Spirit does not share? What does that mean?

Anyone that can help is most appreciated.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 15, 2008, 10:25:42 AM »

So where is the confusion of nature and person? 
Because nature is "ousia". So when you say:
God as Being is a matter of person.
you make the error of confusing ousia with Personhood, an error which you repeat when you say:
Persons are essence.
What you should say is "Persons have essence", or "Essence can exist only in a Person". But you cannot say that Person and Essence are the same thing.


("Being" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "I Am")
No it isn't. "Being" is "ousia" in Greek. the Septuagint has has God calling Himself "O OON" ("The One Who Is") in Greek in Exodus.. "I AM" is "Ego Eimi" in Greek (spoken by Christ in John 8:58 ).

is a He,as in a person who can be addressed,rather than just an unknowable essence..... God's essence can't be distinguished apart from the persons of God.
Again, this goes back to the fact that God is Three Persons in One Essence/Being/Nature. The Divine Essence/Nature exists within the Three Persons, not separated from them. The same goes for you. You have a human Nature (we call it "humanity") which exists in your person, but "human nature" cannot exist outside of a human person. Yet they are not the same thing. You cannot say that your person is "humanity", you can only say that it has humanity,


« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 10:30:23 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #40 on: September 15, 2008, 11:54:50 AM »

ozgeorge,

Isn't this conflation of the 'being' of the Father and the Son ultimately falling inline with Neo-platonist ideas of the One (i.e. Father) emanating the Mind (i.e. Thought or Logos) which then emanates the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit)? Wasn't this Blessed Augustine's influence? I mean isn't the Mind thought of as a Mirror of the One and the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) as a 'lesser' emanation? This seems to be what I am seeing with Anthony... ?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 11:57:22 AM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2008, 09:52:03 PM »

In Trinitarian theology to say that person and essence are the same thing ultimately involves falling into either Sabellian Modalism (i.e., if one emphasizes the unity of essence at the expense of the reality of the persons) or Tritheism (i.e., if one emphasizes the distinction of persons at the expense of the unity of essence).
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2008, 10:16:25 PM »

ozgeorge,

Isn't this conflation of the 'being' of the Father and the Son ultimately falling inline with Neo-platonist ideas of the One (i.e. Father) emanating the Mind (i.e. Thought or Logos) which then emanates the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit)? Wasn't this Blessed Augustine's influence? I mean isn't the Mind thought of as a Mirror of the One and the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) as a 'lesser' emanation? This seems to be what I am seeing with Anthony... ?

I'm not sure that Anthony's error is that complicated. I think it's simply a confusion of terms.
I think the only thing he needs to do is to see the distinction between the terms by grouping them together differently to how he has been.
In other words he needs to group the terms thus:


Group 1.

"Being"/"Nature"/"Essence"/"Ousia"

Group 2.
"Person"/"Hypostasis"/"Persona"

Perhaps what would work best for Anthony to make this distinction (given his Latin background) would be if he reflected on the etymology of the word "Persona". A "persona" was a mask worn by an actor, in other words, a persona is not the actor's "being", but a "person" ("character") in which the actor's being operated.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 11:45:35 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2008, 10:23:11 PM »

In Trinitarian theology to say that person and essence are the same thing ultimately involves falling into either Sabellian Modalism (i.e., if one emphasizes the unity of essence at the expense of the reality of the persons) or Tritheism (i.e., if one emphasizes the distinction of persons at the expense of the unity of essence).

Very true, but as I said to lubeltri above, I really think this is a misunderstanding of terms in this case. But we can also see from this that if we don't fix small errors, they invariably lead to larger errors.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2008, 10:56:18 PM »

Very true, but as I said to lubeltri above, I really think this is a misunderstanding of terms in this case. But we can also see from this that if we don't fix small errors, they invariably lead to larger errors.
I agree.

The English word person actually comes from the Latin word persona. Tertullian wrote about the persons of God before the Greek-speaking theologians did.
One other thing needs to be clarified:  the Greek word prosopon, which is in some sense equivalent to the Latin word persona, was used centuries before Tertullian was even a twinkle in his mother's eyes.

In fact, prosopon is a biblical word used in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 10:59:14 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #45 on: September 16, 2008, 11:22:40 AM »

ozgeorge,

Isn't this conflation of the 'being' of the Father and the Son ultimately falling inline with Neo-platonist ideas of the One (i.e. Father) emanating the Mind (i.e. Thought or Logos) which then emanates the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit)? Wasn't this Blessed Augustine's influence? I mean isn't the Mind thought of as a Mirror of the One and the World-Soul (i.e. Holy Spirit) as a 'lesser' emanation? This seems to be what I am seeing with Anthony... ?

I'm not sure that Anthony's error is that complicated. I think it's simply a confusion of terms.
I think the only thing he needs to do is to see the distinction between the terms by grouping them together differently to how he has been.
In other words he needs to group the terms thus:


Group 1.

"Being"/"Nature"/"Essence"/"Ousia"

Group 2.
"Person"/"Hypostasis"/"Persona"

Perhaps what would work best for Anthony to make this distinction (given his Latin background) would be if he reflected on the etymology of the word "Persona". A "persona" was a mask worn by an actor, in other words, a persona is not the actor's "being", but a "person" ("character") in which the actor's being operated.

But wasn't it 'hypostasis' that gave Persona 'real' theological substance?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 16, 2008, 11:32:34 AM »

But wasn't it 'hypostasis' that gave Persona 'real' theological substance?

Now even I'm getting confused! Cheesy
Do you mean "substance" as in "essence" or "substance" as in "hypostasis"? You see, "sub-stance" literally means means "under-standing" in Latin which is what "hypo-stasis" also means in Greek. Yet in English we use "substance" in the sense of "ousia" ("Essence").
This would all be a lot easier if we all spoke God's language (Greek) Wink.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #47 on: September 16, 2008, 12:02:41 PM »

But wasn't it 'hypostasis' that gave Persona 'real' theological substance?

Now even I'm getting confused! Cheesy
Do you mean "substance" as in "essence" or "substance" as in "hypostasis"? You see, "sub-stance" literally means means "under-standing" in Latin which is what "hypo-stasis" also means in Greek. Yet in English we use "substance" in the sense of "ousia" ("Essence").
This would all be a lot easier if we all spoke God's language (Greek) Wink.

No not as essence but in meaning 'more substantial than merely a mask' (i.e. Persona). As I understand it it was the Cappadocian Fathers who elaborated the term 'hypostasis' from 'persona' to give the term theological weight. Before this personhood was ill understood among Greek Philosophers. At least, this is what I've heard.
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 16, 2008, 12:44:48 PM »

No not as essence but in meaning 'more substantial than merely a mask' (i.e. Persona). As I understand it it was the Cappadocian Fathers who elaborated the term 'hypostasis' from 'persona' to give the term theological weight. Before this personhood was ill understood among Greek Philosophers. At least, this is what I've heard.

I'm personally unaware of the Cappadocian Fathers using one of the terms "prosopon" ("person") or  "hypostasis" ("subsistent being") to expand on the other, but I haven't studied all their works.
I'd be interested to know. To me, both "prosopon" and "hypostasis" seem just as concrete as each other, but then, I have the benefit of 2000 years of their historical use in the Church.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 16, 2008, 02:43:55 PM »

The Sabellians used the word prosopon (face or mask) to stand for the three persons in their writings, but they did this because the word could be read in a modalistic way, and so its use for them involved a denial of the subsistence reality of the three divine persons.  In response to their modalistic interpretation of the word prosopon the Cappadocians used the term hypostasis in order to "concretize" the reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If my memory serves me, a former professor of mine mentioned this in a book that he wrote entitled:

"The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea: A Synthesis of Greek Thought And Biblical Truth"

Link: http://www.amazon.com/Trinitarian-Theology-Basil-Caesarea-Synthesis/dp/0813214734/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221590323&sr=1-1

I believe Aloys Grillmeier also addresses this topic in his book series "Christ in Christian Tradition."
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 16, 2008, 10:45:22 PM »

The Sabellians used the word prosopon (face or mask) to stand for the three persons in their writings, but they did this because the word could be read in a modalistic way, and so its use for them involved a denial of the subsistence reality of the three divine persons.  In response to their modalistic interpretation of the word prosopon the Cappadocians used the term hypostasis in order to "concretize" the reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That's really interesting. It seems that the terms "ousia", "physis", "hypostasis" and "prosopon" enjoyed some level of fluidity of meaning up until Chalcedon (as, for example, St. Cyril's use of "physis" to mean what we would now term "hypostasis" ("mia physis tou Theou Logou sarkomene").
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2008, 02:14:56 AM »

The Sabellians used the word prosopon (face or mask) to stand for the three persons in their writings, but they did this because the word could be read in a modalistic way, and so its use for them involved a denial of the subsistence reality of the three divine persons.  In response to their modalistic interpretation of the word prosopon the Cappadocians used the term hypostasis in order to "concretize" the reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That's really interesting. It seems that the terms "ousia", "physis", "hypostasis" and "prosopon" enjoyed some level of fluidity of meaning up until Chalcedon (as, for example, St. Cyril's use of "physis" to mean what we would now term "hypostasis" ("mia physis tou Theou Logou sarkomene").

Intersting thread. What exactly is the diffrence between the Son and Holy Spirit? They are the same being, but are different persons?

Is there an analogy someone can offer me here? I am a little confused.  Huh

Logged
SolEX01
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 10,239


WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2008, 03:13:50 AM »

^ Welcome to the forum, jackjohn!   Smiley  Enjoy your stay....
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 28, 2008, 07:19:23 AM »

Intersting thread. What exactly is the diffrence between the Son and Holy Spirit? They are the same being, but are different persons?

Is there an analogy someone can offer me here? I am a little confused.  Huh

Welcome jackjohn!
Yes, the Son and the Holy Spirit are different Persons. Our God, The Holy Trinity is One Divine Ousia (Essence) in Three Hypostases (Persons/Sub-stances). However, the word "Being" is a difficult word when used to translate this, because "Essence" refers to "Essential Being" while "Hypostasis" refers to "Sub-stantive Being", so both Essence and Hypostasis are ways of "being". Perhaps a simpler way of expressing this in English is that the Holy Trinity is Three distinct Persons Who share the One Godhead.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #54 on: November 28, 2008, 07:33:17 AM »

The Sabellians used the word prosopon (face or mask) to stand for the three persons in their writings, but they did this because the word could be read in a modalistic way, and so its use for them involved a denial of the subsistence reality of the three divine persons.  In response to their modalistic interpretation of the word prosopon the Cappadocians used the term hypostasis in order to "concretize" the reality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That's really interesting. It seems that the terms "ousia", "physis", "hypostasis" and "prosopon" enjoyed some level of fluidity of meaning up until Chalcedon (as, for example, St. Cyril's use of "physis" to mean what we would now term "hypostasis" ("mia physis tou Theou Logou sarkomene").

Intersting thread. What exactly is the diffrence between the Son and Holy Spirit? They are the same being, but are different persons?

Is there an analogy someone can offer me here? I am a little confused.  Huh



Lots of analogies, none adequate of course.  The Father might be likened to a flame, and the Son its light, and the Spirit its heat.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #55 on: November 28, 2008, 09:17:19 AM »


Intersting thread. What exactly is the diffrence between the Son and Holy Spirit? They are the same being, but are different persons?
...



I am not sure if you will find an Orthodox who would dare to point to exact difference between the Son and Holy Spirit. Except, of course, that the Holy Trinity are one in being and three in hypostasies (sp?), which is the word close, but not identical, to person.

http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exacti.html#BOOK_I_CHAPTER_I

Quote
<- BOOK I CHAPTER I ->
That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with tire things which have not been delivered to us by the holy Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists.

...
Is there an analogy someone can offer me here? ...



Lots of analogies, none adequate of course.  ...

There is nothing St. John of Damascus can't answer...at least we still haven't encountered such a question Grin
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #56 on: November 28, 2008, 01:28:35 PM »

I have read the article that was given me from above and noticed that it stated that no one understands the difference between being begotten and proceeding. The filioque seems to focus on how we define the word proceeding. Does anyone know of an analogy? If begotten and proceeding cannot be defined, how is it that these two words are causing so much disharmony between the churches? I could understand if one side knew the definitions and so corrected the other side: but how can both sides claim utter ignorance and then act with an attitude of being knowledgable? Curious.

From http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exacti.html#BOOK_I_CHAPTER_I , which was posted to me above:

And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand.
Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #57 on: November 28, 2008, 02:09:10 PM »

I have read that the problem with the western view (filioque) of the Holy Spirit is that this makes the Holy Spirit inferior to the Son, since He comes through the Son (or proceeds from the Father and Son ). And it is this inferiority that is not acceptable.

But it would then follow that since the Son existence is caused by the Father, and if we apply the same logic as above, this presents the identical problem between the Son and Father, since the Father is the cause of the Son.

For whatever reason this position of the Son to the Father does not cause any concern, whereas the position that the filioque indicates does.

Nobody says that the Son if inferior to the Father and therefore not equal. But the complaint towards the filioque is just that (but in regards to the Son and Holy Spirit.)

Is this a double standard?

« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 02:20:16 PM by jackjohn » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #58 on: November 28, 2008, 02:31:31 PM »

I have read the article that was given me from above and noticed that it stated that no one understands the difference between being begotten and proceeding. The filioque seems to focus on how we define the word proceeding. Does anyone know of an analogy? If begotten and proceeding cannot be defined, how is it that these two words are causing so much disharmony between the churches? I could understand if one side knew the definitions and so corrected the other side: but how can both sides claim utter ignorance and then act with an attitude of being knowledgable? Curious.

From http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exacti.html#BOOK_I_CHAPTER_I , which was posted to me above:

And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand.


We know that they are different, as revelation tells us so, and the Fathers have so confessed.  Since the Filioque has the procession begotten (since the Son is begotten as a Person, and any procession from Him of the Person of the Spirit would have to have been begotten by the Father, since all the Father has given the Son, the basis of the claim of filioque, is eternally so through the act of begetting, which would include the procession of the Spirit, if the Spirit proceeds also from the Son), the filioque conflates the two.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #59 on: November 28, 2008, 02:33:48 PM »

That's really interesting. It seems that the terms "ousia", "physis", "hypostasis" and "prosopon" enjoyed some level of fluidity of meaning up until Chalcedon (as, for example, St. Cyril's use of "physis" to mean what we would now term "hypostasis" ("mia physis tou Theou Logou sarkomene").

Yes an even for about a hundred years after Chalcedon.  We're often quick to condemn ancient writers as heretics for using the terms improperly (and indeed they condemned each other too), but we must always look the context of their works to be able to determine what they meant.

From my study, it has been the understanding of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from(εκπορευεται) the Father through the Son, which is in-line with Orthodox belief, and therefore proceeds(πορευεται) from the Father and the Son.  The latter is not entirely without agreement in Orthodox belief as long as it is not considered as "εκπορευεται".  The problem was that the Latin word "procedit" is not an equivalent to the Greek "εκπορευεται" and because the "filioque" did not occur in the original Greek people were led to believe (with good reason) that Latins were claiming that the Holy Spirit "εκπορευεται" the Father and the Son, which is not the current belief of either.  It is uncertain, however, whether or not in the earliest times that the Catholic Church made the distinction.

I also am to understand that the earliest recorded usage of the double procession was from Persian Orthodoxy (I'm not sure if that is an oxymoron or not - given the time period).
Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #60 on: November 28, 2008, 02:43:23 PM »

Quote
We know that they are different, as revelation tells us so


I still have no idea what the difference is. You simply say that there is. Could you define it?

Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Is this a double standard?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 02:57:21 PM by jackjohn » Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #61 on: November 28, 2008, 02:54:51 PM »

I don't think there really is a fuss anymore, as far as theologians are concerned, becase I think the understanding of both sides is now congruent.  The fuss is really mostly among lay people who want to keep the dispute alive.  In centuries past, both sides refused to see each others take on it and labelled each other heretics because of it; but that was not the central issue, the division between the East and the West was already centuries old and the filioque was a vehicle by which they could condemn each other.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #62 on: November 28, 2008, 03:27:01 PM »

I don't think there really is a fuss anymore,

You are right. It isn't. It's never been "a fuss".

Filioque is under four anathemas.


I also am to understand that the earliest recorded usage of the double procession was from Persian Orthodoxy (I'm not sure if that is an oxymoron or not - given the time period).

You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.


Is this a double standard?


No, it isn't.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #63 on: November 28, 2008, 03:37:15 PM »



You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.



Oh I read it, I just don't think it was conclusive.
Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #64 on: November 28, 2008, 03:49:22 PM »

I don't think there really is a fuss anymore,

You are right. It isn't. It's never been "a fuss".

Filioque is under four anathemas.


I also am to understand that the earliest recorded usage of the double procession was from Persian Orthodoxy (I'm not sure if that is an oxymoron or not - given the time period).

You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.


Is this a double standard?


No, it isn't.

Why is it not a double standard? Could you explain?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 03:51:38 PM by jackjohn » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #65 on: November 28, 2008, 03:49:39 PM »



You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.



Oh I read it, I just don't think it was conclusive.

Share with us reasons regarding professing filioque in Seleucia 410 a.d. and why those arguments from the first page, including the translation from Syriac, were inconclusive.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #66 on: November 28, 2008, 04:13:20 PM »

That's really interesting. It seems that the terms "ousia", "physis", "hypostasis" and "prosopon" enjoyed some level of fluidity of meaning up until Chalcedon (as, for example, St. Cyril's use of "physis" to mean what we would now term "hypostasis" ("mia physis tou Theou Logou sarkomene").

Yes an even for about a hundred years after Chalcedon.  We're often quick to condemn ancient writers as heretics for using the terms improperly (and indeed they condemned each other too), but we must always look the context of their works to be able to determine what they meant.

From my study, it has been the understanding of the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from(εκπορευεται) the Father through the Son, which is in-line with Orthodox belief, and therefore proceeds(πορευεται) from the Father and the Son.  The latter is not entirely without agreement in Orthodox belief as long as it is not considered as "εκπορευεται".  The problem was that the Latin word "procedit" is not an equivalent to the Greek "εκπορευεται" and because the "filioque" did not occur in the original Greek people were led to believe (with good reason) that Latins were claiming that the Holy Spirit "εκπορευεται" the Father and the Son, which is not the current belief of either.  It is uncertain, however, whether or not in the earliest times that the Catholic Church made the distinction.

If it were understood so, there would not be a problem.  However, the filioque apologists have painted themselves into a corner (the proof text that the Son has everything that the Father has, etc.).

Quote
I also am to understand that the earliest recorded usage of the double procession was from Persian Orthodoxy (I'm not sure if that is an oxymoron or not - given the time period).
No, there was Persian Orthodoxy, but Seleucia 410 wasn't an expression of it.  Witness St. James the Persian, who was martyred around this time:
http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/st_james_persian.htm

Again, the Creed of Seleucia doesn't have anything to do with filioque, as the objectionable verb isn't there.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #67 on: November 28, 2008, 04:23:56 PM »

Quote
We know that they are different, as revelation tells us so


I still have no idea what the difference is. You simply say that there is. Could you define it?

Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

I just take His word (or Word) on it, that there is a difference.

Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

Quote
I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Quote
I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Quote
Is this a double standard?

Truth and falsehood?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #68 on: November 28, 2008, 04:45:03 PM »



You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.



Oh I read it, I just don't think it was conclusive.

Share with us reasons regarding professing filioque in Seleucia 410 a.d. and why those arguments from the first page, including the translation from Syriac, were inconclusive.

That's not my job, I think you failed to meet the burden of proof by not presenting any evidence.  No argument was presented that really sparked any desire to investigate a point of little significance to the contraversy.

If you would like to present an argument showing syriac translations with grammatical analysis, be my guest.  You may very well be right on the matter.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #69 on: November 28, 2008, 05:00:14 PM »



You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.



Oh I read it, I just don't think it was conclusive.

Share with us reasons regarding professing filioque in Seleucia 410 a.d. and why those arguments from the first page, including the translation from Syriac, were inconclusive.

That's not my job, I think you failed to meet the burden of proof by not presenting any evidence. 

Evidence of what? That it isn't Orthodox (it was a NESTORIAN council), or that it doesn't mean filioque (it doesn't translate ekporeusis, which is the problem of the Latin)?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,299


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« Reply #70 on: November 28, 2008, 05:08:18 PM »

Pardon my confusion, but a Nestorian council in 410AD...?
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #71 on: November 28, 2008, 05:13:28 PM »



You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.



Oh I read it, I just don't think it was conclusive.

Share with us reasons regarding professing filioque in Seleucia 410 a.d. and why those arguments from the first page, including the translation from Syriac, were inconclusive.

That's not my job, I think you failed to meet the burden of proof by not presenting any evidence. 

Evidence of what? That it isn't Orthodox (it was a NESTORIAN council), or that it doesn't mean filioque (it doesn't translate ekporeusis, which is the problem of the Latin)?

Evidence that it was not used in 410.
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #72 on: November 28, 2008, 05:17:47 PM »

Pardon my confusion, but a Nestorian council in 410AD...?
The Syrian tradition in that period was very Nestorian in theology even though the term had not been coined yet.  The tradition was not universal though however it was the majority.  This prompted the North Eastern Armenians to start building opposition against the [Nestorian]belief as it was making strong inroads in the Southeast.  I do not know whether or not the council was actually "Nestorian."
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 05:18:57 PM by Marc Hanna » Logged
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,299


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« Reply #73 on: November 28, 2008, 05:28:20 PM »

Ahh, ok, I didn't know that, thank you Smiley
Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #74 on: November 28, 2008, 05:33:30 PM »



   

Quote
We know that they are different, as revelation tells us so


I still have no idea what the difference is. You simply say that there is. Could you define it?

Quote
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.


Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.

I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Quote
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via? And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

To offer an analogy to answer:

It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.

The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 05:35:30 PM by jackjohn » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: November 28, 2008, 05:43:32 PM »

Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via? And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

Firstly, jackjohn, calm down. Your tone is coming across as quite acerbic.
Secondly, the original text of the Creed as agreed at Nicea-Constantinople has the Father as the Source of Both the Son and the Spirit- thus the Holy Trinity in monarchical. The filioque makes both the Father and the Son the multiple "sources" of the Spirit, thus the Holy Trinity is no longer monarchical.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #76 on: November 28, 2008, 05:46:54 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.
Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #77 on: November 28, 2008, 05:52:19 PM »

Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via? And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

Firstly, jackjohn, calm down. Your tone is coming across as quite acerbic.
Secondly, the original text of the Creed as agreed at Nicea-Constantinople has the Father as the Source of Both the Son and the Spirit- thus the Holy Trinity in monarchical. The filioque makes both the Father and the Son the multiple "sources" of the Spirit, thus the Holy Trinity is no longer monarchical.

OKay, I'll try to tone it down.

That the Father is the first principle and the Son the second, is Roman Catholic teaching, point blank. And this is found in the early writings of Augustine as well as the current ccc.

So if your case is that it is not RC teaching that the Father is the first source and the Son the second, then we have added straw man to the list. The RC position is misrepresented in order to attack it.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2008, 05:54:09 PM »

So if your case is that it is not RC teaching that the Father is the first source and the Son the second, then we have added straw man to the list. The RC position is misrepresented in order to attack it.
This is the RC teaching. And it is heresy.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,299


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« Reply #79 on: November 28, 2008, 05:54:47 PM »

Quote
Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless.

There is a big difference between mystery and meaningless. Just because we don't understand, that doesn't mean that something is meaningless. If that were true, then our whole understanding of God would be meaningless, because who really understands God? It is meaningful insofar as we understand it (insofar as it has been revealed), and we leave the rest to mystery which has a meaningfulness in itself.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 05:55:51 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #80 on: November 28, 2008, 06:01:58 PM »

Quote
Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless.

There is a big difference between mystery and meaningless. Just because we don't understand, that doesn't mean that something is meaningless. If that were true, then our whole understanding of God would be meaningless, because who really understands God? It is meaningful insofar as we understand it (insofar as it has been revealed), and we leave the rest to mystery which has a meaningfulness in itself.

If you have no idea how one word is different than another, then the differences are meaningless by defintion.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #81 on: November 28, 2008, 06:01:59 PM »

That the Father is the first principle and the Son the second, is Roman Catholic teaching, point blank. And this is found in the early writings of Augustine as well as the current ccc.


Exactly.

That error was first professed by Blessed Augustine.

It wasn't revealed to Prophets, Apostoles and Evangelists.

Rome elevated it into heresy starting from 1014.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 06:04:28 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #82 on: November 28, 2008, 06:03:01 PM »

So if your case is that it is not RC teaching that the Father is the first source and the Son the second, then we have added straw man to the list. The RC position is misrepresented in order to attack it.
This is the RC teaching. And it is heresy.

Wait a tic: it was posted above that the heresy is precisely that the father and Son are co-first principles of the Holy Spirit?

So which is it?
 'Jackjohn' has been noted as potentially being a poster formerly active here known as 'truth'. Due to not permitting duplicate accounts here at OC.net, 'jackjohn' will be muted until either of the following situations are resolved:

1. 'Jackjohn' explains the confusion between himself and 'truth'; or

2. 'Jackjohn' admits he is 'truth' and responds to the requirements of the following post made on July 12, 2008

This thread has hit 10 pages, and the debate it beginning to dwindle and many just seem to be repeating themselves or that which has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.  There are two paths down which this thread my head. 

Firstly, PtA has provided statements from the Third Council of Constantinople outlining the anathematisation of Pope Honorius due to his impious teachings.  Now, since I was a Roman Catholic, I do understand Honorius was hotly debated at Vatican I, with members taking up both sides.  Some saying Honorius was teaching heretical doctrine and this was why infallibility should not be defined, while others saying his will was as weak as his leadership, and no heresy took place.  Now, it is up to truth , as many Roman Catholics have done before him, to try to prove that anathematisation of Pope Honorius did not specifically mean he was heretical.  What was Pope Honorius?  Well, that argument is solely up to truth to formulate and debate.  Please provide your argument and its support by 23:59 EST, 18 July 2008, otherwise option 2 will come into effect.  I believe other questions have gone unanswered, but this is the tangent we shall follow for now.

Secondly, if this debate continues to dry up and falter, I will have no choice but to lock this thread.  Any significant tangents can be debated in their own threads, if required, in an attempt to stimulate meaningful debate.

Friul locuta est, causa finita est.   Tongue


For the record, 'truth' commented on July 18, 2008 that he was busy and would respond in a week or so. However, he ran into the darkness never to return, exactly like a coward.

+Fr Chris
Forum Administrator
[color]
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 06:21:12 PM by jackjohn » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2008, 06:03:33 PM »


If you would like to present an argument showing syriac translations with grammatical analysis, be my guest. 

Why would I do that for the second time on the same thread?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #84 on: November 28, 2008, 06:08:16 PM »

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #85 on: November 28, 2008, 06:10:51 PM »


If you would like to present an argument showing syriac translations with grammatical analysis, be my guest. 

Why would I do that for the second time on the same thread?
I can't see where you did that the first time.  To simply state that it was a wrong translation does not constitute an analysis.
Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #86 on: November 28, 2008, 06:14:39 PM »

There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:

1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Instead I am not told that words without meaning are meaningful. Huh
Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #87 on: November 28, 2008, 06:18:40 PM »

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

What does proceed here mean? Afterall, I want your sentence to be coherent, as I am sure you do as well if we want understanding.

Logged
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #88 on: November 28, 2008, 06:19:46 PM »

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  Grin
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 06:20:02 PM by jackjohn » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #89 on: November 28, 2008, 06:23:19 PM »



You apparently haven't read the first page of this thread, where it's been explained in details.





Oh I read it, I just don't think it was conclusive.

Share with us reasons regarding professing filioque in Seleucia 410 a.d. and why those arguments from the first page, including the translation from Syriac, were inconclusive.

That's not my job, I think you failed to meet the burden of proof by not presenting any evidence. 

Evidence of what? That it isn't Orthodox (it was a NESTORIAN council), or that it doesn't mean filioque (it doesn't translate ekporeusis, which is the problem of the Latin)?

Evidence that it was not used in 410.

τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #90 on: November 28, 2008, 06:26:41 PM »


If you would like to present an argument showing syriac translations with grammatical analysis, be my guest. 

Why would I do that for the second time on the same thread?
I can't see where you did that the first time.  ...

Take the glasses.

[size=0,1]Post No:7.[/size]
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #91 on: November 28, 2008, 06:27:41 PM »

Pardon my confusion, but a Nestorian council in 410AD...?

My bad.  This council formed the Sassanid Church (at the time Orthodox) and put at its head the Catholicos of Seleucia (questionable if this was a rebellion against Antioch) who adopted Nestorianism as its creed later.  Though there was what would be called Nestorianism at the council (Theodore, condemned for Nestorianism at the Fifth Ecumenical Council was around then), it wasn't the official break at 410. When that came, the Nestorians continued to accept Seleucia 410, whereas I am not aware that anyone, including the Orthodox, ever had (except the Vatican when it created the Chaldeans).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #92 on: November 28, 2008, 06:28:50 PM »

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  Grin

No, we don't.

We would have to have it revealed to Prophets, Apostoles or Evangelists. And we don't have it.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #93 on: November 28, 2008, 06:30:54 PM »

Pardon my confusion, but a Nestorian council in 410AD...?

My bad.  This council formed the Sassanid Church (at the time Orthodox) and put at its head the Catholicos of Seleucia (questionable if this was a rebellion against Antioch) who adopted Nestorianism as its creed later.  Though there was what would be called Nestorianism at the council (Theodore, condemned for Nestorianism at the Fifth Ecumenical Council was around then), it wasn't the official break at 410. When that came, the Nestorians continued to accept Seleucia 410, whereas I am not aware that anyone, including the Orthodox, ever had (except the Vatican when it created the Chaldeans).

Which has already been pointed out, although not that eloquently, by me in the post No.: 6 on this very thread.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: November 28, 2008, 06:34:01 PM »

What does proceed here mean? Afterall, I want your sentence to be coherent, as I am sure you do as well if we want understanding.
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #95 on: November 28, 2008, 06:56:58 PM »

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  Grin

I'll throw an idea as to clarify the two words in question:

Begotten = having the Father as the first cause.

Proceeds = having the Father as the first cause yet through the Son as the secondary cause.

Interesting, as differences are outlined.

Since you do not believe that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, how do you define the differeneces between begetting an proceeding. Answer: you have no way.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 06:58:03 PM by jackjohn » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #96 on: November 28, 2008, 06:57:51 PM »

Just one more thing jackjohn.
It's just come to our attention that you are using the same ISP as the poster called "truth".
Before you type another word, I would like you to read our Forum Rules, especially the very first General Rule, and then pm me with your explanation please.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #97 on: November 28, 2008, 06:59:44 PM »

Just one more thing jackjohn.
It's just come to our attention that you are using the same ISP as the poster called "truth".
Before you type another word, I would like you to read our Forum Rules, especially the very first General Rule, and then pm me with your explanation please.


I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 07:00:00 PM by jackjohn » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #98 on: November 28, 2008, 07:00:33 PM »


Since you do not believe that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, how do you define the differeneces between begetting an proceeding. Answer: you have no way.


Exactly.

And that's been explicitly said not only by St. John of Damascus, as quoted above in this very thread, but by St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa, the former two being "the Doctors" of RCC.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #99 on: November 28, 2008, 07:01:25 PM »

What does proceed here mean? Afterall, I want your sentence to be coherent, as I am sure you do as well if we want understanding.
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.

I'll repond after it is determined which handle I need to login as.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #100 on: November 28, 2008, 07:02:08 PM »

I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
So, are you telling us that jackjohn, earlychurch and truth are the same person? Have you bothered to read the forum rules?
This is quite serious.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #101 on: November 28, 2008, 07:03:45 PM »


I'll throw an idea as to clarify the two words in question:


And the reason why should we rely on your "thrown idea" more than on Prophets, Apostoles, Evangelists, Holy Fathers, Saints, Great Theologians (at least two of whom are "Doctors" of Roman Catholic Church) is...what exactly?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
jackjohn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #102 on: November 28, 2008, 07:06:54 PM »

I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
So, are you telling us that jackjohn, earlychurch and truth are the same person? Have you bothered to read the forum rules?
This is quite serious.


I read them. Which handle do you prefer?
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: November 28, 2008, 07:08:25 PM »

I read them.
I want you to copy and paste the first General Rule in this thread.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #104 on: November 28, 2008, 07:53:31 PM »



   

Quote
We know that they are different, as revelation tells us so


I still have no idea what the difference is. You simply say that there is. Could you define it?

Define what the Fathers are in unison that cannot be defined?  No.

Quote
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

Quote
This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.

Sorry.  I am only a finite creature admitting his limits to understand the infinite Creator.


Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

Quote
I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

The Persons are not indirect.  That's the problem.  And what proceeds from the Son would have to first be begotten by the Father.

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Quote
Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.

Who said they were meaningless?  God says "proceed (ekporeusis)." I take Him at His word.

Quote
I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Quote
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Quote
Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?

You're the one saying the Spirit is indirect, whereas the Son is direct.  Not I.

Quote
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via?

The filiqoue apologist claim the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (at least some have).  The Father and the Son have a relationship, but neither the Father nor the Son is a relationship, but Persons.

Quote
And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

You ask Him His name.  He said "I Am."  Good enough for me.

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Quote
To offer an analogy to answer:

It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.


For HS lake to flow out of Son river, Father spring would have to beget the river to process into HS lake.  Modellism.

Quote
The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.
The Son in His Person receives nothing from the Person of the Father that is not begotten.  The Spirit is not begotten.

There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:

1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Instead I am not told that words without meaning are meaningful. Huh

Answered.

So which is it?
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  Grin

Through the Son is not the same as from the Son.  Ekporeusis dia is fine, in fact Orthodox.  Ekporeusis ek, applied to any but the Father, is heresy.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 08:19:32 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #105 on: November 28, 2008, 07:55:31 PM »

I thought I was earlychurch. It has been awhile. What I am suppose to do? Sign in under a truth?
So, are you telling us that jackjohn, earlychurch and truth are the same person?
No wonder he doesn't have a problem with modellism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: November 28, 2008, 08:00:12 PM »

Just so that everyone is aware, the poster "jackjohn" is actually registered under two other names which they have posted under: "truth" and "earlychurch". They have been asked to post only under their original name of "earlychurch" and the other two identities have been banned.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 28, 2008, 08:02:06 PM »

No wonder he doesn't have a problem with modellism.

[moderator hat off]    ROFL Cheesy (It's actually "Modalism")   [moderator hat on]
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 08:09:27 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #108 on: November 28, 2008, 08:06:17 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #109 on: November 28, 2008, 08:07:51 PM »

Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via? And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

Firstly, jackjohn, calm down. Your tone is coming across as quite acerbic.
Secondly, the original text of the Creed as agreed at Nicea-Constantinople has the Father as the Source of Both the Son and the Spirit- thus the Holy Trinity in monarchical. The filioque makes both the Father and the Son the multiple "sources" of the Spirit, thus the Holy Trinity is no longer monarchical.

OKay, I'll try to tone it down.

That the Father is the first principle and the Son the second, is Roman Catholic teaching, point blank. And this is found in the early writings of Augustine as well as the current ccc.

So if your case is that it is not RC teaching that the Father is the first source and the Son the second, then we have added straw man to the list. The RC position is misrepresented in order to attack it.
No, making the Son a second principle is heresy enough.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #110 on: November 28, 2008, 08:18:33 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Not only this, but the claim that εκπορευεται and procedit are not synonymous means that the Roman Catholics not only added to the Creed with the filioque, they also changed the meaning of the original wording- hardly a defence!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #111 on: November 28, 2008, 09:35:41 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Not only this, but the claim that εκπορευεται and procedit are not synonymous means that the Roman Catholics not only added to the Creed with the filioque, they also changed the meaning of the original wording- hardly a defence!

Got my old password! I can respond now. I probably will after dinner.  Grin
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #112 on: November 28, 2008, 10:24:13 PM »

Quote
Define what the Fathers are in unison that cannot be defined?  No.

Okay, words not defined are meaningless. Case closed. Remember, Fathers also maintained the filioque.

Quote
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

Right. So how can you argue then against a position you claim you don't to understand?

This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.

Quote
Sorry.  I am only a finite creature admitting his limits to understand the infinite Creator.

If you were admitting your limits then how can you continue to argue? Why say that you know nothing of the words because you are human and then turn around and argue as if you knew? This is not consistent.

Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

Since you have no idea of these differences, how can you know of the represussions?

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

Quote
The Persons are not indirect. 


What does this mean? We were writing about the cause, not the person.

Quote
And what proceeds from the Son would have to first be begotten by the Father.

Right. Father is first principle. Where is the confusion?

Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.

Quote
Who said they were meaningless?  God says "proceed (ekporeusis)." I take Him at His word.

If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?...how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place? Huh


I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Quote
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?

Quote
You're the one saying the Spirit is indirect, whereas the Son is direct.  Not I.

In regard to the origin of the Spirit. I am not saying that the Spirit is an indirect person.

If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via?

Quote
The filiqoue apologist claim the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (at least some have).  The Father and the Son have a relationship, but neither the Father nor the Son is a relationship, but Persons.

I have already mentioned what the filioque means: That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Father as the first source, and the Son and the second. I even produced an analogy.

And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

Quote
You ask Him His name.  He said "I Am."  Good enough for me.

I am clueless here as to where you are going. You are simply introducing another word that youhave no meaning.

Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Since you have offered no clue as to meaning, this has no meaning. How can I reply?


To offer an analogy to answer:

It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.


Quote
For HS lake to flow out of Son river, Father spring would have to beget the river to process into HS lake.  Modellism.

Saying modellism doesn’t answer anything. Again, how am I suppose to reply?

The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.

Quote
The Son in His Person receives nothing from the Person of the Father that is not begotten.  The Spirit is not begotten.

There you go using words that you claim to not to know. In order to make positive claims, you need to know what the words you are using mean, which, you don’t. You have no light here as to the differences between the words begotten and proceeding. The RC does.

There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:

1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Instead I am told that words without meaning are meaningful. 

Quote
Answered.

Not answered. Ignored.

Quote
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.   

Quote
Through the Son is not the same as from the Son.  Ekporeusis dia is fine, in fact Orthodox.  Ekporeusis ek, applied to any but the Father, is heresy.

Straw man, since the RC defines the filiqoue as from the Father through the Son.

Here is the problem: you are claiming to know what the writers gave the meaning to their latin words. Since back then, the east and west spoke different languages, confusion was more or less to be expected. Now however, you can look up Augustine’s usage and philosophy regarding these words as well as look up the current ccc. On both counts, from the early Latin church to the present day, the RC DOES not believe that the Son and father are both the first principle. The beauty of the internet is to eliminate these misunderstandings, not to pretend to know what the opposing view’s side mean by their words and setting up a straw man case, BUT listening and researching what they meant by their chosen words and then coming to conclusions.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 10:43:57 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #113 on: November 28, 2008, 10:34:40 PM »

Quote
Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

You can only draw this conclusion if assume εκπορευεται to be synomymous with procedit, otherwise, I think it remains unchallenged that the Catholics do not actually believe this.

And they defend it with such vigor why?  And yes, some do.
Not only this, but the claim that εκπορευεται and procedit are not synonymous means that the Roman Catholics not only added to the Creed with the filioque, they also changed the meaning of the original wording- hardly a defence!

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 10:40:08 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: November 28, 2008, 10:48:38 PM »

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
Oh please! I waited for you to finish dinner for that?! Cheesy
So are you agreeing with Marc Hanna that εκπορευεται and procedit mean different things, and therefore the Roman Catholics subscribe to a different Creed than the Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Councils? You're doing my work for me!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #115 on: November 28, 2008, 11:03:52 PM »

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
Oh please! I waited for you to finish dinner for that?! Cheesy
So are you agreeing with Marc Hanna that εκπορευεται and procedit mean different things, and therefore the Roman Catholics subscribe to a different Creed than the Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Councils? You're doing my work for me!


Two words that are spelled differently can mean the same thing. Two words that are spelled the same can have different meanings. The only way to find out what the church means by using proceeding is to ask the church; NOT to dream up what you would like them to have meant a la straw man. You set a position that the RC does not hold in order to attack it. Straw man.

I have already insisted that anyone concerned can look in the ccc or read Augustine ideas concerning the Latin's usage of the filioque. But knowing the truth of the Latin church's position is far from what is being sought here. You just want to set up a division at any cost, even to the point of misrepresenting RC position.

I am rusty here, but I even think that the RC does not mind if the eastern churches exclude the filioque because they are sensitive to the possible language misunderstangs that have happened in the past. The charity from the east on this misunderstanding is not returned, but used as a strawn man in order to attack and seperate.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:06:49 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #116 on: November 28, 2008, 11:17:27 PM »

Quote
Define what the Fathers are in unison that cannot be defined?  No.

Okay, words not defined are meaningless. Case closed.

There's a reason why St. Paul spoke of the "Unknown God."  Evidently, just a foreign God to you.

Quote
Remember, Fathers also maintained the filioque.


Just the heretics.  Not our Fathers.

Quote
Since I am not God, and therefore do not know Him as He knows Himself, no.

Quote
Right. So how can you argue then against a position you claim you don't to understand?

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I've already said (several times): He says so, I take His Word on it.

I don't understand a thing my mechanic tells me about the car.  I just take his word on it, since I have learned to trust him.  God is much more complicated (because of His simplicity), and more trustworthy.

Quote
This does not help the situation. Since these words are not defined, they are meaningless. I’d thought I’d point that out. You are contesting their usage without knowledge. You only gave an excuse as to why you have no idea of their meaning.

I know that they are not the same thing.  He Who knows has taught us thus.  If that doesn't fit under your microscope, too bad.

Quote
Sorry.  I am only a finite creature admitting his limits to understand the infinite Creator.

Quote
If you were admitting your limits then how can you continue to argue? Why say that you know nothing of the words because you are human and then turn around and argue as if you knew? This is not consistent.

I know that you are in no position to correct God.

Quote
Since the Filioque has the procession begotten, the filioque conflates the two.

Quote
Since you have no idea of these differences, how can you know of the represussions?

Just take a look.  Since the Son has everything the Father has, so His Words of Institution "confects" the Eucharist.  No need for an epiclesis.  The Fathers thought, knew, otherwise.

Quote
I do not understand how it conflates the two. There is an obvious disticnction if the Son only is begotten(derives) from the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit proceeds(derives) from both (directly from the Father and indirectly from the Son.)

Not matter how much you repeat this, it isn't going to get around the problem that if you say the Person of the Spirit comes in any way from the Person of the Son, then He must be partly begotten, as the Son receives from the Father by being begotten.

Quote
The Persons are not indirect. 


Quote
What does this mean? We were writing about the cause, not the person.

That's your mistake, seperating the two.

Quote
And what proceeds from the Son would have to first be begotten by the Father.

Quote
Right. Father is first principle. Where is the confusion?

Father>beget>Son>Spirit.

Quote
Again, since procession is meaningless, then it follows that hypostatic procession is meaningless. You seem to think that using old words from a different language is going to shed light on a word that you outright say is meaningless.

Meaningless only if you like going in circles.

Quote
Who said they were meaningless?  God says "proceed (ekporeusis)." I take Him at His word.

Quote
If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?...how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place? Huh

My dolt of a ex father in law could repeat phrases like a parrot, and had enough brains to use the right phrase for the right occasion.  Even he would know that saying "My condolences" at a wedding would raise eyebrows at the least, but he still couldn't define the words if his life depended on it.

Speaking of parrots....


Quote
I really want to know why all the fuss about words the two churches claim to be unknowable? And if the main complaint is because by being caused by another makes Him not equal, than why is this not also the complaint between the Father and Son, since both churches say that the Father causes the Son?

Quote
Because it reduces the Spirit to the product of the Two sources of the Trinity, and personalizes Him to the relationship between the two, with all sorts of reprecussions.

Quote
Again, this does not address the double standard being done here:
If to be caused by another means to be unequal and therefore offensive as regards to the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why is not this same argument launched against the relationship between the Father and Son, since both churchs believe the Father causes the Son?
Quote
You're the one saying the Spirit is indirect, whereas the Son is direct.  Not I.

Quote
In regard to the origin of the Spirit. I am not saying that the Spirit is an indirect person.

If to be caused is to be depersonalized, then why is not the Son depersonalized in the way that you claim the Latin fathers have done to the Holy Spirit via?

No one, except you, has claimed that to be caused is to be depersonalized.  But to use your words, you believe the Spirit is caused by someone also caused.

Quote
The filiqoue apologist claim the Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son (at least some have).  The Father and the Son have a relationship, but neither the Father nor the Son is a relationship, but Persons.

Quote
I have already mentioned what the filioque means: That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Father as the first source, and the Son and the second. I even produced an analogy.

And outsourced the Spirit.

Quote
And telling me that you have no idea what you are talking about, but know why you don't know does not do anything for your case.

My case was closed in 381.  Not my problem that you dare to think you can improve on the Fathers, and Christ Himself.

Quote
You ask Him His name.  He said "I Am."  Good enough for me.

Quote
I am clueless
Roll Eyes
Quote
That indirect part.  Anything the Son has is begotten of the Father.  That would include a hypostatic procession of the Spirit from the Son.

Quote
Since you have offered no clue as to meaning, this has no meaning. How can I reply?

Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.


Quote
To offer an analogy to answer:

It does not follow that we conflate the lake and the stream if we say that the first origin of the lake is a spring, and that since the river orignates from the spring and flows into a lake, that the lake and river are conflated. Again, the spring causes the river that causes the lake. These 3 are not conflated. In this analogy, the Father represents the spring; the Son the river; and the lake the Holy Spirit.



Quote
For HS lake to flow out of Son river, Father spring would have to beget the river to process into HS lake.  Modellism.

Quote
Saying modellism doesn’t answer anything. Again, how am I suppose to reply?

τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον

Quote
The lake's first direct origin is the spring, but since the water goes through the river before it empties into the lake, then the river becomes the indirect cause.

Quote
The Son in His Person receives nothing from the Person of the Father that is not begotten.  The Spirit is not begotten.

Quote
There you go using words that you claim to not to know. In order to make positive claims, you need to know what the words you are using mean, which, you don’t. You have no light here as to the differences between the words begotten and proceeding. The RC does.

Making it up doesn't make it true.

Quote
There are two questions of mine not being addressed here:

1) If to be caused is such an offense to the dignity of the Holy Spirit, then why does not the Son suffer this same offense since He is caused by the Father?


Again, you are the only one, with the Muslims, claiming to be caused is an offense.

Quote
2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

If I throw some aresenic in the river, will you drink from the lake?

Quote
Instead I am told that words without meaning are meaningful.  


No, you are told that their Referent cannot be contained in them.  As an infinite being, evidently, you should know that.

Quote
Answered.

Quote
Not answered. Ignored.

I thought the Vatican was getting away from the claims of having explained everything.

Quote
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.

Quote
Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son.  
 

Yes, but that has nothing to do with His Personhood, hypostasis nor filioque.

Quote
Through the Son is not the same as from the Son.  Ekporeusis dia is fine, in fact Orthodox.  Ekporeusis ek, applied to any but the Father, is heresy.

Quote
Straw man, since the RC defines the filiqoue as from the Father through the Son.

What's the Latin for strawman.  You all at the Vatican are fond of that word.

And no, it doesn't.  Check the Latin of the CCC on this matter.

Quote
Here is the problem: you are claiming to know what the writers gave the meaning to their latin words. Since back then, the east and west spoke different languages, confusion was more or less to be expected. Now however, you can look up Augustine’s usage and philosophy regarding these words as well as look up the current ccc. On both counts, from the early Latin church to the present day, the RC DOES not believe that the Son and father are both the first principle. The beauty of the internet is to eliminate these misunderstandings, not to pretend to know what the opposing view’s side mean by their words and setting up a straw man case, BUT listening and researching what they meant by their chosen words and then coming to conclusions.


As has been posted, believing that the Son is a second principle is heresy enough.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:20:47 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #117 on: November 28, 2008, 11:23:48 PM »

Quote
Not matter how much you repeat this, it isn't going to get around the problem that if you say the Person of the Spirit comes in any way from the Person of the Son, then He must be partly begotten, as the Son receives from the Father by being begotten.

This does not follow. The difference from being through the Son does not mean that the Holy Spirit is partly begotten, unless you can come up with some idea of what begotten means in the first place. That the Spirit comes through the Son elimnates the sameness of the relationship that He has with the Father as the Son has. Partly the same is not the same as fully the same.

I'll respond to the rest soon, probably.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:24:33 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #118 on: November 28, 2008, 11:29:14 PM »

If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?...how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place?

Quote
My dolt of a ex father in law could repeat phrases like a parrot, and had enough brains to use the right phrase for the right occasion.  Even he would know that saying "My condolences" at a wedding would raise eyebrows at the least, but he still couldn't define the words if his life depended on it.

Speaking of parrots....

This is a sad attempt to defelect the obvious problem with your case as stated in my above. This is almost a sign of giving up, at least the point you tried to address.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #119 on: November 28, 2008, 11:29:21 PM »

You don't know the difference between these words, so how can you argue? And that words can have more than one meaning is known by everyone. 
Oh please! I waited for you to finish dinner for that?! Cheesy
So are you agreeing with Marc Hanna that εκπορευεται and procedit mean different things, and therefore the Roman Catholics subscribe to a different Creed than the Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Councils? You're doing my work for me!


Two words that are spelled differently can mean the same thing. Two words that are spelled the same can have different meanings. The only way to find out what the church means by using proceeding is to ask the church; NOT to dream up what you would like them to have meant a la straw man. You set a position that the RC does not hold in order to attack it. Straw man.

I have already insisted that anyone concerned can look in the ccc or read Augustine ideas concerning the Latin's usage of the filioque. But knowing the truth of the Latin church's position is far from what is being sought here. You just want to set up a division at any cost, even to the point of misrepresenting RC position.

I am rusty here, but I even think that the RC does not mind if the eastern churches exclude the filioque because they are sensitive to the possible language misunderstangs that have happened in the past. The charity from the east on this misunderstanding is not returned, but used as a strawn man in order to attack and seperate.

Yeah, we got this hangup in the East of saying what we mean and meaning what we say.  Believing one thing and saying another doesn't sit well with us.

Btw, through the Son is a Patre per Filium procedere, NOT (according to the CCC wording) ex Patre Filióque procédit.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #120 on: November 28, 2008, 11:31:59 PM »

Quote
No one, except you, has claimed that to be caused is to be depersonalized.  But to use your words, you believe the Spirit is caused by someone also caused.

To use my words would be to say that the Holy Spirit has His first source from the Father and then through the Son.

You object the filioque because you think that it places the Holy Spirit beneath the Son right?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:53:19 PM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #121 on: November 28, 2008, 11:33:12 PM »

Quote
And outsourced the Spirit.

What in the world are you talking about?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #122 on: November 28, 2008, 11:35:38 PM »

Quote
Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.

Really, I thought it more to misrepresent a churches position in order to attack it a la straw man?

There is no doubt that you are keeping silent on the meaning of your words you use whereas the RC shed light.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #123 on: November 28, 2008, 11:37:01 PM »

If you cannot understand his word, how can you proceed to speak as if you did? This is self refuting. If I hear a foreigner speak and repeat what he said but have no clue of the meaning, how could I argue a case of meaning?

Ever hear of a phrase book?

Of course, you trust that the person writing it speaks both languages and gets it right (I've seen phrase books that don't).

God the Word, incarnated, with the communication of the idioms tells us in human speech that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  As He is our only informant, and we are in no position, not consubstantial with divinity, to correct Him, we take his word on it.

Quote
..how can you say that your meaning is more correct than mine when you already admit that you have no meaning in the first place?


You are the one trying to empty it of meaning, not us.

Quote
My dolt of a ex father in law could repeat phrases like a parrot, and had enough brains to use the right phrase for the right occasion.  Even he would know that saying "My condolences" at a wedding would raise eyebrows at the least, but he still couldn't define the words if his life depended on it.

Speaking of parrots....

Quote
This is a sad attempt to defelect the obvious problem with your case as stated in my above. This is almost a sign of giving up, at least the point you tried to address.
Whatever helps you digest dinner...
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #124 on: November 28, 2008, 11:38:39 PM »

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Quote
If I throw some aresenic in the river, will you drink from the lake?

I suspect that you have been just joking for I have no idea where you have been going with your replies. They appear to be a sad attempt to avoid the obvious. I will only answer questions that you seem to be asking or statements that you are serious on or have a serious point.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #125 on: November 28, 2008, 11:40:02 PM »

Quote
The Spirit Eternally Proceeds from the Father alone. All else is heresy.



Anyway, don't you believe at times He proceeds through the Son. 
 

Quote
Yes...


 Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #126 on: November 28, 2008, 11:40:35 PM »

Quote
Let all mortal flesh keep silent, and with fear and trembling stand.

Really, I thought it more to misrepresent a churches position in order to attack it a la straw man?

There is no doubt that you are keeping silent on the meaning of your words you use whereas the RC shed light.

I've never seen arson refered to as "shedding light."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #127 on: November 28, 2008, 11:43:35 PM »

2) How is that the Son and Holy Spirit are conflated when as was shown by my above analogy, the lake and river are not conflated?

Quote
If I throw some aresenic in the river, will you drink from the lake?

I suspect that you have been just joking for I have no idea where you have been going with your replies. They appear to be a sad attempt to avoid the obvious. I will only answer questions that you seem to be asking or statements that you are serious on or have a serious point.

God chose what is foolish to confound the wise.  That's what tripped up the Grand Inquistor, and the Pharisees before him.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #128 on: November 28, 2008, 11:51:21 PM »

Quote
As has been posted, believing that the Son is a second principle is heresy enough

It's a question of authority. Your believe one way, the RC the other. Who is the final court of appeal? For the first 1000 years, it was the RC.

Why exactly is having the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son hereitcal? The reasons you have provided here are incoherent to me. You think otherwise. I believe I have shown not only that your words were meaningless, and you grant this, but how the RC actually shows the way for a distinction. You claim your darkness is because God has not shed light; whereas I claim that He has shed light via the RC.

You claim that the river and lake are conflated since they both have the spring as their first source. NO one thinks that lakes and rivers are the same. You are alone here, but have to maintain that in order to secure the seperatism.

Again: lakes are not rivers.

I think that my case has been made, and what's the point in continuing?
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: November 28, 2008, 11:52:35 PM »

Two words that are spelled differently can mean the same thing. Two words that are spelled the same can have different meanings.
That's nice.

The only way to find out what the church means by using proceeding is to ask the church; NOT to dream up what you would like them to have meant a la straw man.
Let me repeat:
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.

You set a position that the RC does not hold in order to attack it. Straw man.
Excuse me, but I'm actually not the one who claimed that the phrases "τον εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" and "qui ex Patre procedit" mean different things. I'm actually saying that they mean the same thing, i.e. That the Holy Spirit goes forth from the Father; which makes the filioque clearly heresy. What I am saying is that to try and claim that these phrases mean different things in order to defend the filioque means that the original meaning of the Creed has changed in Latin hands (which it hasn't, apart from the heretical adding of the filioque). Face it, you guys say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, contrary to the Church Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods. That's fine, believe whatever you want- but just don't keep trying to justify it to we who hold the Orthodox Faith of the Church.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:54:43 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #130 on: November 28, 2008, 11:56:41 PM »

Quote
Ever hear of a phrase book?

Of course, you trust that the person writing it speaks both languages and gets it right (I've seen phrase books that don't).

God the Word, incarnated, with the communication of the idioms tells us in human speech that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  As He is our only informant, and we are in no position, not consubstantial with divinity, to correct Him, we take his word on it.

You would have a case if the Bible said: The Holy Spirit in no way has come from the Father through the Son. But it does not. So you try to deduce these major truths from inference while you claim to be darkness about.
Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #131 on: November 29, 2008, 12:02:03 AM »

Quote
Face it, you guys say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, contrary to the Church Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods. That's fine, believe whatever you want- but just don't keep trying to justify it to we who hold the Orthodox Faith of the Church.

If you read what the church fathers were saying about the filioque (Augustine) you'd see the current ccc agrees. You are trying to alter what they meant by what you would have them say. The misunderstanding then is noted by many OC scholars today. The meanings were confused due to the west speaking Latin and the east Greek. What excuse do you have now that you can't research Augustine etc and find their context?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 12:04:45 AM by earlychurch » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #132 on: November 29, 2008, 12:06:21 AM »

You would have a case if the Bible said: The Holy Spirit in no way has come from the Father through the Son. But it does not. So you try to deduce these major truths from inference while you claim to be darkness about.
Are you listening to yourself? The Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods actually did have access to the Gospel and Epistles (believe it or not). The Undivided Church in an Ecumenical Council laid out the Creed and it and subsequent Councils decreed that it was never to be altered. Now you are telling us that you have the right to alter it based on your interpretation of the Bible. Sorry, but I think I'll take the opinion of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church over yours.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
earlychurch
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: xtian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 274


« Reply #133 on: November 29, 2008, 12:16:44 AM »

Quote
Now you are telling us that you have the right to alter it based on your interpretation of the Bible

This brings up an interesting point. My interpretation. You say you believe the way you do because God told you. I can say the same thing, which would cancel your case.

Yet this is precisely what has been told to me here as a defense of not knowing meanings of words and beliefs. Do you guys listen to yourselves?

The creed was not changed, but clarified. The filioque was already in the western church father's mouth centuries before it was added to the creed. Back then, Rome was the center and first. First among equals as you would say. But I guess they were always wrong eh?  Wink
 Earlychurch, you have had plenty of time to respond to the request made of you in July, in this post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17374.msg273145.html#msg273145

After you do so, you may continue in your ineffectual defense of your claims made in this thread, which you resurrected yourself while impersonating a 'new poster' interested in this topic.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 12:25:34 AM by FrChris » Logged

THIS USER HAS REGISTERED UNDER THE OTHER NAMES OF "truth" AND "jackjohn" WHICH HAVE BEEN BANNED.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #134 on: November 29, 2008, 12:37:36 AM »

This brings up an interesting point. My interpretation. You say you believe the way you do because God told you. I can say the same thing, which would cancel your case.
No you can't claim the same thing. I claim the unified decrees of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, your claim is based on a schismatic group calling itself "the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", but is, in effect, the first Protestants.

The creed was not changed, but clarified.

Stop! You're killing me!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #135 on: November 29, 2008, 12:46:08 AM »


If you would like to present an argument showing syriac translations with grammatical analysis, be my guest. 

Why would I do that for the second time on the same thread?
I can't see where you did that the first time.  ...

Take the glasses.

[size=0,1]Post No:7.[/size]
All you did was post a lot of links.  If you're trying to make a point I think it's fair that you at least cut and paste the pertinent info with your explanation instead of expecting me to follow your links and draw the same conclusion.  I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #136 on: November 29, 2008, 01:07:46 AM »

What does proceed here mean? Afterall, I want your sentence to be coherent, as I am sure you do as well if we want understanding.
The word used in the Creed is "εκπορευομενον" (pronounced "ekporevOmenon").
The root verb of this word is "εκπορευω" (pronounced "ekporevO") meaning "I cause to go forth". Thus "εκπορευομενον" means "caused to go forth from". The Creed says that the Holy Spirit is "το εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" which transliterates as "The One out of the Father caused to go forth from". To add the filioque makes it read: "The one out of both the Father and the Son caused to go forth from" which is heresy.
I'd just like to make a little correction here, it's not really that important, but εκπορευω is not a word.  Εκπορευομαι is a present deponent verb and therefore has no active form.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #137 on: November 29, 2008, 01:16:30 AM »

I'd just like to make a little correction here, it's not really that important, but εκπορευω is not a word.
It is a word. I wish people would stop trying to correct me on my native tongue Cheesy, but if you don't believe me, then see page 518 of of H.G Liddell and R. Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (With A Revised Supplement). I've got it open in front of me now!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #138 on: November 29, 2008, 01:58:46 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your native tongue modern Greek?
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #139 on: November 29, 2008, 02:03:29 AM »

Isn't εκπορευομενον a present continuous adverbial participle which translates specifically: "continuously comes(or goes) out of"?  I'm not trying to correct you on your native tongue, because Koine Greek (or this intermediate form of Greek) is no one's native tongue any more.
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #140 on: November 29, 2008, 02:05:51 AM »

Furthermore, I don't know anything about modern Greek, but in ancient times this was a deponent verb.

I just checked out that lexicon, it ranges from 1200BC - 600AD, so I believe that the form existed at some point, but in early Christian times there was no root in that form.  So we're both right-ish. Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 02:10:58 AM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #141 on: November 29, 2008, 07:01:54 AM »

Quote
As has been posted, believing that the Son is a second principle is heresy enough

It's a question of authority. Your believe one way, the RC the other. Who is the final court of appeal? For the first 1000 years, it was the RC.

Honorius.

Yes, it's a question of authority.  You believe one way with the RC, I believe the other with the Fathers who cited Christ as their authority.  For the last 2000 years, the Ecumenical Council was and is the final court of appeal, as Popes Zosimos, Vigilius and Honorius found out, not to mention Pope Leo the Great (canon 3 of the second council and 28 of the Fourth).

When the Fathers of the Second Council wrote the Creed, they were not in communion with Rome.

Quote
Why exactly is having the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son hereitcal?


It's not.  But that has nothing to do with filioque.


Quote
The reasons you have provided here are incoherent to me
.

That's because the RC has evidently muddled your thinking.


Quote
You think otherwise.

The Fathers know otherwise.


Quote
I believe I have shown not only that your words were meaningless, and you grant this,


No, I don't.  Wishful thinking on your part.

Quote
but how the RC actually shows the way for a distinction.


If you want to know the Truth, make it up-Gospel of Dr. Seuss.


Quote
You claim that the river and lake are conflated since they both have the spring as their first source. NO one thinks that lakes and rivers are the same. You are alone here, but have to maintain that in order to secure the seperatism.


You are the one claiming a dual source.

Quote
Again: lakes are not rivers.

Again: you claim the water of the one comes from the other.  Btw, your linquistic limitations are showing: in many languages, yes they are.  And in Egypt, both in Ancient Egyptian, Coptic and Arabic, the Nile River is often referred to as the "sea."

Quote
I think that my case has been made, and what's the point in continuing?

Since the canons of the Ecumenical Councils and Constantinople IV (879) are clear in condemning filioque, I don't know why you do continue.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 07:02:26 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #142 on: November 29, 2008, 07:07:40 AM »

Quote
Ever hear of a phrase book?

Of course, you trust that the person writing it speaks both languages and gets it right (I've seen phrase books that don't).

God the Word, incarnated, with the communication of the idioms tells us in human speech that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  As He is our only informant, and we are in no position, not consubstantial with divinity, to correct Him, we take his word on it.

You would have a case if the Bible said: The Holy Spirit in no way has come from the Father through the Son. But it does not. So you try to deduce these major truths from inference while you claim to be darkness about.

LOL.  I've heard the same line of defense on reincarnation "the Bible doesn' say that souls aren't reborn."

The Son identifies the Spirit, the Paraclete as the Person Who proceeds from the Father.  Nothing about the Son.  Consult the end of Revelation about adding things.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #143 on: November 29, 2008, 07:14:59 AM »

Quote
Now you are telling us that you have the right to alter it based on your interpretation of the Bible

This brings up an interesting point. My interpretation. You say you believe the way you do because God told you. I can say the same thing, which would cancel your case.

LOL.  Ok, Joseph Smith, Jr.

Quote
Yet this is precisely what has been told to me here as a defense of not knowing meanings of words and beliefs. Do you guys listen to yourselves?

No, to the Fathers.

Quote
The creed was not changed, but clarified.

LOL.  Like the Quran clarified the NT.  Thank you, Muhammad.


Quote
The filioque was already in the western church father's mouth centuries before it was added to the creed.

Then they should have spit it out, and rinsed.


Quote
Back then, Rome was the center and first. First among equals as you would say. But I guess they were always wrong eh?  Wink

Not always, Honorius.  Your problem is you claim they never were.  The Fathers show othewise.

And so did Pope Leo III of Rome.  Leo forbade the addition of "filioque" to the Nicene Creed which was added by Franks in Aachen in 809. He also ordered that the Nicene creed be engraved on silver tablets so that his conclusion might not be overturned in the future. He wrote «HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith)(VITA LEONIS, LIBER PONTIFICALIS (Ed.Duchene, TII, p.26)

Quote
 Earlychurch, you have had plenty of time to respond to the request made of you in July, in this post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17374.msg273145.html#msg273145

After you do so, you may continue in your ineffectual defense of your claims made in this thread, which you resurrected yourself while impersonating a 'new poster' interested in this topic.

I'll have to take a looksy. police
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #144 on: November 29, 2008, 07:38:12 AM »

Furthermore, I don't know anything about modern Greek, but in ancient times this was a deponent verb.

I just checked out that lexicon, it ranges from 1200BC - 600AD, so I believe that the form existed at some point, but in early Christian times there was no root in that form.  So we're both right-ish. Cheesy

So it was a deponent verb.  So what?  In particular as although recorded in Greek, Christ most certainly said it in Aramaic.  The word, as has been mentioned, is napheq. Btw, for a literal translation from the Aramaic, a participle would have to be used.

1200BC-600 AD.  Gospel of John, c. 100.  Nicene(-Constantinopolitan) Creed, 381.  It fits.

As to Seleucia, I'll post a overly literal translation:

...and we confessors in (the) Spirit Living and Holy, the Living Paraclete who (is) from the Father and the Son, and in (the) one Trinity, in (the) one Essence, in (the) one will, we receivers the Faith of the three hundred and eighteen bishops who were in Nicea the city.  Such is our confession and our belief, it which we (are) receivers from our Holy Fathers.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #145 on: November 29, 2008, 10:05:39 AM »

^^regarding the Greek; that's my very point, in that spread of time Greek saw a lot of morphology.  In the period of Greek we're referring to the word had no active form and was deponent.  Just because the word existed at some time in that period it doesn't mean that it existed at all times.  Another example of this is the consonantal iota,; it also pre-existed biblical Greek but its usage dropped out.  It's still not overly relavent to the point at hand; it was just meant as a side note.

Regarding the Syriac, your literal translation is not entirely dissimilar in meaning.  I think it gives good reason to believe that this doctrine pre-existed its Latin usage.  It states that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 10:07:33 AM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #146 on: November 29, 2008, 10:55:31 AM »

^^regarding the Greek; that's my very point, in that spread of time Greek saw a lot of morphology.  In the period of Greek we're referring to the word had no active form and was deponent.  Just because the word existed at some time in that period it doesn't mean that it existed at all times.  Another example of this is the consonantal iota,; it also pre-existed biblical Greek but its usage dropped out.  It's still not overly relavent to the point at hand; it was just meant as a side note.

Since it existed at the time of Christ and the time of First Constantinople, I still don't see the relevance.  I am not sure what you mean by consonantal iota, since iota is still around.


Quote
Regarding the Syriac, your literal translation is not entirely dissimilar in meaning.  I think it gives good reason to believe that this doctrine pre-existed its Latin usage.  It states that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son.
No, the verb napheq would have to be present to render filioque.  Btw, the form of the Nicene Creed that the Assyrians use does NOT have "and the Son," though it explicitely, as does the original Greek, state that He proceeds from the Father.  As "men" renders both Greek "ek" and "dia," it is the verb (present in the Assyrian text of the Nicene Creed, without "and the Son"), that would be another issue.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #147 on: November 29, 2008, 11:11:27 AM »

The consanantal iota is another letter in the Greek alphabet that dropped out before biblical times, it is not the same as the vocalic iota which is still in use.

The active form of εκπορευομαι was also not in use during biblical times and the period afterward, so as we always profess that "context is key" any active form of the word is irrelavent to our conversations when they pertain to this period in time.

regarding whether or not the verb "to proceed" is present or not, the statement is still akin to the doctrine associated to the Creed with the inclusion of the filioque.  I certainly was not clear in my original post, and I apologise for that, I did not mean to make the assertion that the filioque was used specifically in the Creed but rather that the doctrine was present.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 11:12:19 AM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #148 on: November 29, 2008, 12:25:20 PM »

The consanantal iota is another letter in the Greek alphabet that dropped out before biblical times, it is not the same as the vocalic iota which is still in use.

You mean iota subscript?  It was dropped out of pronunciation and writing, but remained, as in the Constantinopolitan era (i.e. "Byzantine") it was retained by wringing under its vowel.

Quote
The active form of εκπορευομαι was also not in use during biblical times and the period afterward, so as we always profess that "context is key" any active form of the word is irrelavent to our conversations when they pertain to this period in time.

Since the Fathers used the term in 381, we know it existed.  Since being deponent would effect the form, but not the meaning (at leat in this case), what would be the relevance in any case?  As I've said, the Aramaic Vorlage would use the active participle, no matter what form the Greeks used.

Quote
regarding whether or not the verb "to proceed" is present or not, the statement is still akin to the doctrine associated to the Creed with the inclusion of the filioque.  I certainly was not clear in my original post, and I apologise for that, I did not mean to make the assertion that the filioque was used specifically in the Creed but rather that the doctrine was present.

The verb ekporeusis is the problem, or rather solution.  As the phrase "proceeds from the Father through the Son" is used by the Fathers of the 4th century and perhaps earlier than 381, that isn't an issue: the Spirit deriving His Person from a hypostatic procession from the Son is a problem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #149 on: November 29, 2008, 12:58:37 PM »

1) No I didn't mean the iota subscript - that is actually still a vowel.

2) I've seen no active form used in 381

3) I don't think the verb is necessarily the root problem, but rather the understanding of and the presence of the doctrine of the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit.  The quote from 410, suggests that there was a possible understanding of such a doctrine.  If not, what is meant by the quote from 410?
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #150 on: November 29, 2008, 05:05:29 PM »

Excuse me, but I'm actually not the one who claimed that the phrases "τον εκ του Πατρος εκπορευομενον" and "qui ex Patre procedit" mean different things. I'm actually saying that they mean the same thing, i.e. That the Holy Spirit goes forth from the Father; which makes the filioque clearly heresy. What I am saying is that to try and claim that these phrases mean different things in order to defend the filioque means that the original meaning of the Creed has changed in Latin hands (which it hasn't, apart from the heretical adding of the filioque). Face it, you guys say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, contrary to the Church Fathers of the Nicean-Constantinoplian Synods. That's fine, believe whatever you want- but just don't keep trying to justify it to we who hold the Orthodox Faith of the Church.

My goodness, why don't you Orthodox appreciate mystery? You folks are always trying to legalistically define the undefinable.... Wink
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #151 on: November 29, 2008, 05:09:45 PM »

My goodness, why don't you Orthodox appreciate mystery heresy? You folks are always trying to legalistically define apophatically approach the undefinable.... Wink
Corrections made for the sake of accuracy.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 05:10:00 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #152 on: November 29, 2008, 05:44:03 PM »

^^ Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 05:44:24 PM by Marc Hanna » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #153 on: November 29, 2008, 06:04:42 PM »

It should be noted that the adherence to Orthodox Faith has been criticized both as "unability to define" and "legalistically define the undefinable" by filioquists on the same thread.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,430


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #154 on: November 29, 2008, 06:57:25 PM »

It should be noted that the adherence to Orthodox Faith has been criticized both as "unability to define" and "legalistically define the undefinable" by filioquists on the same thread.
Yes, and what you see in lubeltri's Reply #150 above is his use of the rhetorical tactic of irony.  Take the specific criticism in that post with a bit of a sense of humor.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #155 on: November 29, 2008, 07:28:58 PM »

2) I've seen no active form used in 381
Euripides uses the present imperative active "ἐκπορεύετ'" ("fetch out"/"summon forth") in line 1068 of Phoenissae.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 07:29:20 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 314



« Reply #156 on: November 29, 2008, 08:13:55 PM »

How about active indicative?  Seeing as that was the specific form in question.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 08:15:17 PM by Marc Hanna » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #157 on: December 01, 2008, 05:36:55 PM »

Resurrection of this Thread!  Grin

Didn't a Father once say that the distinctions between Son and Spirit is one proceeds and the other is begotten and to look no further into the mystery? Does this sound familiar to anyone?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #158 on: December 01, 2008, 05:56:09 PM »

Resurrection of this Thread!  Grin

Didn't a Father once say that the distinctions between Son and Spirit is one proceeds and the other is begotten and to look no further into the mystery? Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Both St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Can't look for the quotes now, you'll have them tomorrow if nobody else provides them.

Edit: typo
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 05:56:58 PM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Asteriktos
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,299


Russians. Even when holding a cat they're dour.


« Reply #159 on: December 01, 2008, 06:16:58 PM »

Not exactly what you were after, but a few passages to chew on...

"What then is Procession?  Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?" - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31, 8

"For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son... For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension." - St. John Of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8
Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #160 on: December 01, 2008, 06:23:10 PM »

Not exactly what you were after, but a few passages to chew on...

"What then is Procession?  Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?" - St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31, 8

"For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son... For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension." - St. John Of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 1, 8

yeah! The First one was it! You are the Man! Thanks so much!
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #161 on: December 03, 2008, 11:21:19 PM »

I have a question (I've searched here, to no avail): does any one know the background of St. Maximus' letter to Marino on the filioque (for one thing, do we have it in Greek, or only Latin? police).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,629



« Reply #162 on: July 27, 2011, 02:11:11 PM »

Just came across this interesting tidbit in Aquinas' Summa:
Quote
Article 2. Whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son?

Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i): "We say that the Holy Ghost is from the Father, and we name Him the spirit of the Father; but we do not say that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, yet we name Him the Spirit of the Son." Therefore the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son....

Reply to Objection 3. The Nestorians were the first to introduce the error that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son, as appears in a Nestorian creed condemned in the council of Ephesus. This error was embraced by Theodoric the Nestorian, and several others after him, among whom was also Damascene. Hence, in that point his opinion is not to be held. Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2
Only in the reasoning of the Scholastic Vatican does a denial not deny what it denies.

interesting, given the claim that the Filioque first appeared at the Council of Seleucia, and the association of that Council in the history of Nestorianism.

The Nestorians have a work of Theodore of Mopsuestia (condemned for his heretical Nestorianism at Constantinople II) commenting on the Nicean Creed (although it treats the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed), which says on the section in question:
Quote
It is with the (above) words that our blessed Fathers warned us and taught us that we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit was from the Divine nature of God the Father. This is the reason why He is confessed and believed in side by side with the Father and the Son at the time of initiation and baptism. Each one of us is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of our Fathers, which is derived from the teaching of our Lord, so that it should be made clear and manifest to all that our blessed Fathers handed down to us the doctrine of the true faith by following the order of Christ. Even the words of the creed contain nothing but an explanation and interpretation of the words found in the teaching of our Lord. Indeed, He who ordered to baptise the Gentiles in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit showed us clearly that the Divine nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one. It was not possible that He should induce the Gentiles—who were converted to the true faith by casting away from them the error of polytheism and rejecting those who were falsely called gods—to receive a teaching that drew them nigh unto the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, if He did not know the oneness of their Divine nature which exists eternally and which is the cause of everything; (nor would He have induced us) to secede from those who are not truly gods and to believe in one Divine nature which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; to desist from calling creatures gods and to believe that the uncreated nature is one, which from nothing can make everything because it is truly Lord and God to whom this name and this honour are justly due.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/theodore_of_mopsuestia_nicene_02_text.htm#C9
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 02:22:14 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: filioque Seleucia 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.524 seconds with 190 queries.