OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 08:22:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque... in the East?  (Read 19832 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... :-)


« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,472


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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 319



« 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: 319



« 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: 319



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 319



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


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

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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« 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: 319



« 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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


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

Ahh, ok, I didn't know that, thank you Smiley
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 319



« 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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,095


Goodbye for now, my friend


« 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

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
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: 319



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
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 0.162 seconds with 72 queries.