OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 12:38:45 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Filioque a Dogma  (Read 7281 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« on: October 22, 2003, 08:40:29 AM »


From Benedict XIV's Encyclical "ALLATAE SUNT (On the observance of Oriental Rites)", 26 July, 1755.


Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

30. "Whenever the union of the Greek and Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this. "

Has anyone seen this before?

Perhaps this is why the Latin church prefers to recognize the Council of Constantinople 869-70 A.D. as the Eighth Ecumenical Council, as opposed to the 879 A.D. Council of Constantinople, despite the fact that the former was annulled by the latter and the 'Filioque' condemned by the entire Church.

Logged
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2003, 02:02:42 PM »

Condemned by the ENTIRE Church?  Are you so sure?

LatinTrad
Logged
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,749



« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2003, 04:23:53 PM »

LT,

Good to see ya here  Smiley! Sorry bout NYY  Wink.

Pax Christi,

james
« Last Edit: October 27, 2003, 04:25:22 PM by Jakub » Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
LatinTrad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


www.unavoce.org www.christendom.edu


« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2003, 08:14:34 PM »

Hey, James!

Now we can both go to the tear-bucket together.

Btw, did you know that Jack McKeon is a daily communicant?  He came to my Tridentine Mass in NY on Sunday after the game!  No wonder the Yankees lost!

LatinTrad
Logged
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2003, 06:49:01 AM »

Hi Latin Trad,

Yes, the Council in Constantinople of 879 A.D. not only annulled the council held in the same city ten years earlier but also condemned the Filioque and vindicated St. Photios, all in the presence of the Papal legates and 400 bishops. Additionally the Pope at the time, John VIII, quite explicitly condemned the Filoque in his correspondence with St. Photios, although he was reluctant to uproot the addition in his territory out of fear of causing scandal.
Logged
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2003, 08:49:57 AM »

I've noticed that there were councils in which bishops from one part of the Church greatly outnumbered the other part. Usually because of difficulty in traveling from one part of the Church to where the council was being held. Considering that in these councils the whole Church wasn't being represented could it be that the decisions might be questioned?

In the West we understand that The Holy Spirit proceedes from The Father and that since Jesus promised to send The Holy Spirit after he asended into Heaven that The Holy Spirit comes to us at the request of The Son. So we say proceedes from the Father and the Son. Yet we don't mean that The Holy Spirit came from The Son as in begotten of The Son. Is this where the problem lies? Is it because the Orthodox concern is that one could misconstrue the meaning?
Logged

Peace
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2003, 11:36:20 AM »

I've noticed that there were councils in which bishops from one part of the Church greatly outnumbered the other part. Usually because of difficulty in traveling from one part of the Church to where the council was being held. Considering that in these councils the whole Church wasn't being represented could it be that the decisions might be questioned?

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia specifically says that Trullo was rejected in part because it had no significant Western participation.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2003, 11:38:04 AM by Keble » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,689


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2003, 02:03:26 PM »

I've noticed that there were councils in which bishops from one part of the Church greatly outnumbered the other part. Usually because of difficulty in traveling from one part of the Church to where the council was being held. Considering that in these councils the whole Church wasn't being represented could it be that the decisions might be questioned?

I suppose this is possible.  It is one reason many Oriental Orthodox have mixed feelings about the later EO councils.  But the Filioque is something added by Rome unilaterally to the Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils.  Even the Nestorians accept these two in full!  It goes without saying that Rome also accepts these Councils.  I don't see how this line of argument could be used here.  

And never mind the Creed minus the Filioque in Greek and Latin on silver plates installed in Saint Peter's Basilica by the then reigning Pope "for the defence of the Orthodox Faith" (at least, that's how I've heard the story, and from Catholics no less).  Tongue  

Quote
In the West we understand that The Holy Spirit proceedes from The Father and that since Jesus promised to send The Holy Spirit after he asended into Heaven that The Holy Spirit comes to us at the request of The Son. So we say proceedes from the Father and the Son. Yet we don't mean that The Holy Spirit came from The Son as in begotten of The Son. Is this where the problem lies? Is it because the Orthodox concern is that one could misconstrue the meaning?


Well, the Orthodox have no problem admitting a "temporal procession" of the Holy Spirit from the Son, I think.  What is at issue is the "eternal procession", which is from the Father alone.  What you say above seems perfectly fine.  But it is not clear to me that the Latin Church has always taught things like this.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2003, 12:07:23 AM »

Thanks for the reply. What I said about the filioque is my understanding of what the West means when we say the creed. I don't remember the details but aparently the filioque was added in Spain because of some local heresy regarding the issue. Eventually the whole western Church adopted the wording. Perhaps after the problem in Spain was salved we shouldn't have permantly left it in but what is done is done. In the future if we can reunite I'm sure this issue will be solved satisfactorally.
Logged

Peace
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2003, 09:12:09 PM »


I suppose this is possible.  It is one reason many Oriental Orthodox have mixed feelings about the later EO councils.  But the Filioque is something added by Rome unilaterally to the Creed of the first two Ecumenical Councils.  Even the Nestorians accept these two in full!  It goes without saying that Rome also accepts these Councils.  I don't see how this line of argument could be used here.  

I agree, this has been pointed out on many instances.  Chages to the Creed can only be made in an Ecumenical Council, not arbitrarily by the Pope of Rome.

Quote
What is at issue is the "eternal procession", which is from the Father alone.  

Correct.  Any other view is a distortion of the Trinity.

Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2003, 09:13:25 PM »

In the future if we can reunite I'm sure this issue will be solved satisfactorally.

This is something we should all pray for.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
NDHoosier
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian Patriarchate
Posts: 75


Exiled from God's Country (North Dakota)


« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2003, 12:45:57 AM »

In my investigations into Orthodoxy, I closely studied the decrees of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, which is the most systematic exposition of Roman Catholic theology.  This council clearly taught (a quote, from translation, of course):  "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle". (emphasis mine)

This is what convinced me that the Latins had indeed changed not only the wording of the creed, but its very meaning, and that the Orthodox charge against the Roman Catholics, and their understanding of what the Latins meant by it, was accurate.
Logged

There ain't a horse that can't be rode, and there ain't a rider that can't be throwed.
Saint Polycarp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 243



« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2003, 11:25:29 PM »

ok but I'm not well educated in theology Catholic or Orthodox. God is One. Does not The Holy Spirit proceed from The Father and The Son since the assention of Jesus? By procede I mean to be sent out from heaven to humanity.
We are not speaking of begetting as in Jesus being begotten of The Father.
Help to clear up my confusion. Thanks.
Logged

Peace
Byzantino
Me Ortodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2003, 02:48:18 AM »

[This council clearly taught (a quote, from translation, of course):  "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle".]
 
.....hence this is the way Pope Benedict XIV understood the dogma of the Filioque in his encyclical above, only 200 yrs later.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 18,689


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2003, 03:12:47 AM »

ok but I'm not well educated in theology Catholic or Orthodox. God is One. Does not The Holy Spirit proceed from The Father and The Son since the assention of Jesus? By procede I mean to be sent out from heaven to humanity.
We are not speaking of begetting as in Jesus being begotten of The Father.
Help to clear up my confusion. Thanks.

But the Creed does not address this "temporal" procession of the Holy Spirit, which is what you are talking about here.  The Creed is talking about "eternal" procession.  To use your example above, it would be as if we were talking indeed about Christ being begotten of the Father, and not about Christ coming to earth.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,749



« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2003, 12:50:58 PM »

If I as a RC see JPII as the Patriarch of the Western Church & Bishop of Rome, and do not use the filioque etc ..................what am I ?

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2003, 12:55:42 PM »

A crazy mixed up lopsided Latin like me Cheesy
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,749



« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2003, 02:12:12 PM »

At least I'm not alone, although Mor says I'm a disturbed Latin.

james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2003, 02:25:10 PM »

Well - at least he still thinks of you as Latin.

I'm not totally sure that he thinks I am Latin albeit a disturbed Latin Cheesy

Wish I could remember the phrase he used Wink
« Last Edit: November 03, 2003, 02:25:32 PM by the slave » Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
MsGuided
Pharmakolytria
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 478


St. Anastasia


« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2003, 02:44:15 PM »

Hey I'm a crazy mixed up lopsided latin too! I had no problems saying the Filioque til I got history handed to me by a certain someone.  Would being a Uniate solve all these problems? Huh  probably not, but i'm working on it...
Logged

"Forgive me that great love leads me to talking nonsense." Barsanuphius
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2003, 04:31:06 AM »

If I as a RC see JPII as the Patriarch of the Western Church & Bishop of Rome, and do not use the filioque etc ..................what am I ?

You may see JPII only as Patriarch of the Western Church & Bishop of Rome, but what does JPII see himself as? What to the bishops and cardinals in Vatican City see him as?

I don't think you and they will find yourselves in agreement :-

If Patriarch Bartholomew/Vartholomeos starts claiming to be head of all of Eastern Orthodoxy, he will find himself to be out of communion with the very same.

John.
Logged
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2009, 04:33:26 PM »

It says "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle"
it does not say "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source" that is a significant difference.


In my investigations into Orthodoxy, I closely studied the decrees of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent, which is the most systematic exposition of Roman Catholic theology.  This council clearly taught (a quote, from translation, of course):  "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle". (emphasis mine)

This is what convinced me that the Latins had indeed changed not only the wording of the creed, but its very meaning, and that the Orthodox charge against the Roman Catholics, and their understanding of what the Latins meant by it, was accurate.
Logged
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2009, 04:36:56 PM »

Would it be a surprise to everybody to know that the copy of the Roman Catholic documents of the 7th Ecumenical Council has the word filioque in it? In which the bishop of the east responded, why did you not tell this to us long ago (from the council of florence).



I agree, this has been pointed out on many instances.  Chages to the Creed can only be made in an Ecumenical Council, not arbitrarily by the Pope of Rome.


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2009, 04:50:31 PM »

Would it be a surprise to everybody to know that the copy of the Roman Catholic documents of the 7th Ecumenical Council has the word filioque in it?

LOL.  No, it comes right after the Donation of Constantine.



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
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 #24 on: January 29, 2009, 09:33:22 PM »

[This council clearly taught (a quote, from translation, of course):  "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle".]
 
.....hence this is the way Pope Benedict XIV understood the dogma of the Filioque in his encyclical above, only 200 yrs later.


Gracia et Pax Vobiscum (to my Latin Friends),

I guess the real question regarding this issue of 'one principle' and 'one spiration' would be is the Holy Spirit be spirated by both as if mirrored by Father and Son or is this single spiration finding it's origin in the Father alone yet passing through the Son? The later, I would guess, is acceptable to the Orthodox but the former would be far to similar to that of the emanation of the Platonic Trinity of The One, Nous and World Soul.

Anyone following me?
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.”
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2009, 09:53:44 AM »

It says "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle"
it does not say "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source" that is a significant difference.


Where is Apotheoun when we need him?

It is probably not a good thing to emphasize the Western theory that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle because this idea has Sabellian connotations for the Orthodox since they hold that the one principle (arche) in the Godhead is the Father alone. In other words, being principle (arche) is a hypostatic property unique to the Father.

Catholic theologians sometimes write as if the phrase "as from one principle" should assuage the Orthodox concerns.  It doesn't.  It is seen as heresy to assign to the Son this hypostatic property which is unique to the Father,
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 09:57:30 AM by Irish Hermit » 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 #26 on: January 30, 2009, 10:07:15 AM »

It says "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle"
it does not say "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one source" that is a significant difference.


Where is Apotheoun when we need him?

It is probably not a good thing to emphasize the Western theory that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle because this idea has Sabellian connotations for the Orthodox since they hold that the one principle (arche) in the Godhead is the Father alone. In other words, being principle (arche) is a hypostatic property unique to the Father.

Father Bless,

As I understand it "by the Father 'through the Son' as from one principle" is the key to interpreting the early Fathers who of spoken of this. Is this correct in your estimation?

Undrstanding Blessed Augustine's Platonic influences I tend to agree with Orthodox criticism of it's Western interpretation but I do believe the answer to be in an orthodox interpretation of this teaching. I know we have Eastern and Western Fathers speaking of the procession and I believe there to be an orthodox understanding of this but I am uncertain if it's intention was based on a proper orthodox understanding. I know of texts published in the 1950's which taught the procession as if both the Father and the Son spirated the Holy Spirit in a rather Platonistic fashion. At the very least the illustrations were very misleading to any kind of an orthodox interpretation of the teaching. I would hope any dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox on this issue would illuminate this more orthodox teaching so that both parties might come to an understanding that promotes a shared orthodoxy.
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.”
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2009, 10:25:50 AM »

As I understand it "by the Father 'through the Son' as from one principle" is the key to interpreting the early Fathers who of spoken of this. Is this correct in your estimation?

Dear Ignatius,

Saint Gregory the Theologian who died about 388 AD is an erudite representative of the Church Fathers on the matter of the origins of the three Persons of the Trinity.  He has no hint at all of any eternal procession of the Spirit "by the Father 'through the Son' as from one principle."


Saint Gregory's statement about the difference in manifestation refers to the difference between begetting and proceeding as he makes clear in Oration 32:8:The Fifth Theological Oration, "On the Holy Spirit":
 
You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" [Orat XX, 2] "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]
 

The Fifth Theological Oration.On the Holy
Spirit by St Gregory Nazianzen


Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2009, 10:41:05 AM »

Another Church Father shared by us both. Saint John of Damascus:

'The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible. We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.'

and also from Saint John of Damascus:

"We do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son."



The Orthodox know only within the limits of Scripture and Tradition. Both of these affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. This is what we know with crystal clear clarity.

See what Saint John of Damascus and Saint Gregory Nazianzen have explained about this. Are we wiser and holier than them?

[Caution: what follows is an exercise in "speaking the truth in love."]  Catholics, based on neither Scripture nor Tradition, have added a new doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. This is not the apostolic faith. This is something new and heretical, spun out of the pride of the human mind.

New ideas formulated about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son are disingenuous at best, a mistaken effort to create a compromise formula for ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox. Some Orthodox theologians are willing to look at this formula in order to dialogue better with the separated brethren, Catholic and Protestant. But it is very flimsy theological opinion and so unanchored in the Tradition that I would bet my bottom dollar that the Catholic Church will not change its Creed from "and the Son" and substitute "... who proceeds from the Father through the Son."

« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 10:46:53 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2009, 11:42:19 AM »

IH, could you give a citation for the context of the your latter quote? (Not trying to be controversial-- I just want to read the larger passage.)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2009, 12:00:20 PM »

IH, could you give a citation for the context of the your latter quote? (Not trying to be controversial-- I just want to read the larger passage.)

Apotheoun, a Byzantine Catholic, uses it as his signature line on Catholic Answers Forums and I picked it up from him.  He has never given a reference but we know him to be totally scholarly and he would never twist a quote by using it in isolation.

If he is on this forum he may see this message?  Or somebody could ask him on CAF?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2009, 12:09:17 PM »

IH, could you give a citation for the context of the your latter quote? (Not trying to be controversial-- I just want to read the larger passage.)


Saint John of Damascus, EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, Book 1
early 8th century

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_exp1.aspx
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2009, 12:32:38 PM »

IH, could you give a citation for the context of the your latter quote? (Not trying to be controversial-- I just want to read the larger passage.)


Saint John of Damascus, EXACT EXPOSITION OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH, Book 1
early 8th century

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_exp1.aspx
...And here is the actual document.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.viii.html

Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2009, 01:17:48 PM »

I am not sure that the passage from John of Damascus does not further compound the mess, for in two places in chapter XII he speaks of the Spirit proceeding through the Son:

  • And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation.
  • For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father.

One can certainly make the argument that the Latin "and" is a sufficiently bad substitute for John's "through". But plainly it cannot be said that the latter language isn't, at least here, patristic.
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 #34 on: January 30, 2009, 01:27:51 PM »

Dear Ignatius,

Saint Gregory the Theologian who died about 388 AD is an erudite representative of the Church Fathers on the matter of the origins of the three Persons of the Trinity.  He has no hint at all of any eternal procession of the Spirit "by the Father 'through the Son' as from one principle."

Saint Gregory's statement about the difference in manifestation refers to the difference between begetting and proceeding as he makes clear in Oration 32:8:The Fifth Theological Oration, "On the Holy Spirit":
 
You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how" [Orat XX, 2] "You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, then I will explain to you the physiology of the Son's generation and the Spirit's procession and both of us shall be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God" [Orat XXXI, 8]
 
The Fifth Theological Oration.On the Holy
Spirit by St Gregory Nazianzen

Grace and Peace Father,

With much deference I proceed on the course to discuss this very challenging and difficult topic well aware of St. Gregory's cautions...

If we could perhaps look to St. Cyril, maybe we might find evidence of discussion of this mystery even among Eastern Fathers:

St. Cyril of Alexandria clearly teaches (in several places) that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "through the Son." As a modern Eastern Orthodox bishop and scholar Photios of Iona explains:

"Saint Cyril taught that the Spirit proceeded from the Father through the Son. In words that could be taken from Augustine, Cyril remarks, ‘inasmuch as the Son is God and from God by nature, since He has been truly generated from God the Father, the Spirit is His own, and He is in Him and from Him.’ The tendency of Cyril at times to confuse the terms ‘person’ and ‘nature’ is well known. …It is quite significant that Cyril, a product of Alexandrian theology, influenced as it was by Neo-Platonism, is unfortunately ambiguous in his choice of words …"
(Bishop Photios of Iona, a.k.a. Dr. Joseph P. Farrell, quoted in correspondence from Cyril Quattrone to Mark Bonocore).

Setting aside the attempt by modern Eastern Orthodox to brand all non-Antiochian Greek theology (along with Latin theology) as somehow "Neo-Platonic," the reality is that St. Cyril’s connection between Son and Spirit is found throughout Alexandrian, Cappadocian, and, yes, even some Antiochian theology. However, many modern Eastern Orthodox seem unwilling to admit this. The statement cited above by St. Cyril is by no means isolated, accidental, or rare, but occurs many times in his theological works. For example, he writes to Nestorius, saying …

"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)

Here, St. Cyril clearly denies the Photian position (i.e., the popular Eastern Orthodox view, advocated by Cyril Quattrone above) that the Son has no eternal, Personal connection to the Spirit. For, after establishing that They are of the same essence yet distinct in their Personhoods, St. Cyril then maintains that there is a specific connection between them, and that the Spirit is from the Son as He is from the Father.

St. Cyril also says …

"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.]

Here again, St. Cyril of Alexandria clearly acknowledges the Son’s eternal, Personal possession of (i.e., participation in) the Spirit. Christ did not work from some post-incarnational pouring forth of the Spirit, but by a Spirit Who was proper to Himself (the Person of the Son) from all eternity.

And, perhaps most striking of all, St. Cyril also writes …

"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

The Son did not come to possess the Holy Spirit in time, but from all eternity. Likewise, and this is all-important, the Spirit possesses all that is of the Father through the Son! This clearly shows that St. Cyril recognized an eternal, Personal connection between the Son and the Spirit, and it firmly pits St. Cyril’s position against that of Photius, who claims that the Spirit’s procession from the Father has nothing to do with the Person of the Son.

Now, as I said above, this view of an eternal, Personal connection between Son and Spirit is not limited to St. Cyril alone. Rather, it is clearly a preoccupation in all Alexandrian Greek theology, going back at least as far as St. Athanasius and St. Didymus the Blind.

For example, St. Didymus the Blind writes …

"As we have understood discussions ….about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which He is of His own nature. …So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which He subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given Him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given Him by the Son"
(The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 380]).

The reference is to the principal of Sonship. In other words, it is from the Father ‘through the Son’ that the Spirit eternally receives His Personal identity. Please note that St. Didymus writes this contemporaneously with Constantinople I’s confession about the Spirit proceeding from the Father. Yet no contradiction was perceived, because there is no contradiction. Indeed, Didymus was drawing from a time-honored Alexandrian tradition:

For, St. Athanasius himself testifies that….

"Insofar as we understand the special relationship of the Son to the Father, we also understand that the Spirit has this same relationship to the Son. And since the Son says, ‘everything that the Father has is mine (John 16:15),’ we will discover all these things also in the Spirit through the Son. And just as the Son was announced by the Father, Who said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:17),’ so also is the Spirit of the Son; for, as the Apostle says, ‘He has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!' (Galatians 4:6)." (Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B).

Once again, it is the eternal relationship of Persons that is being referred to. Either the Sonship of Christ is eternal or it is not. St. Athanasius clearly promoted one, eternal Sonship, and so an eternal Spirit of Sonship Who proceeds eternally from the Father ‘through the Son.’ This is precisely why the Alexandrians (just like the Latins –e.g. St. Augustine) constantly cite John 16:15 in regard to the Son’s possession of the Spirit. The Son does not possess or participate in the Spirit of Sonship in a mere temporal sense, but from all eternity; and the Spirit (as the Spirit of Sonship) receives His Personal identity from the Father ‘through the Son.’

And, even the Cappadocians recognize this Apostolic reality.

For example, St. Basil the Great writes …

"Through the Son, Who is one, He (i.e., the Holy Spirit) is joined to the Father, Who is one, and by Himself completes the Blessed Trinity." (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).

What cannot be disputed here is that the Spirit, for Basil, is joined to the Father eternally and Personally through the Son. There is a Personal connection –an eternal, Personal participation of the Son. This is the reality that Filioque addresses. .

And St. Basil clarifies this even further when he writes …

"…the goodness of [the Divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the Persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the Monarchy." (ibid., 18:47).

And the same is true of the Filioque (properly understood). Again, the reference is to the eternal relationship of the Persons, with the Son having an intrinsic, Personal connection to the Spirit. Here, St. Basil acknowledges the orthodoxy of the contemporary Alexandrian position, even though that is not the principal concern of the Cappadocians, which is of course the Father’s monarchy.

Likewise, St. Gregory Nazianzus says …

"…the Spirit is a middle term (meson) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten." (Discourse 31, Cool.

This too addresses the same reality appreciated by the Alexandrians and the Latins, which sees the Spirit as an eternal, Personal ‘connection’ between Father and Son –the Spirit of Sonship.

Also, St. Gregory of Nyssa writes …

"The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is [further] attested that He is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him' (Romans 8:9). So the Spirit Who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son Who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed." (Fragment in Orationem Dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

Once again, it is the eternal order that is being described here, not merely the temporal imparting of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit "of the Son" (the Spirit of Sonship) in an eternal capacity. The Spirit’s Personal identity is depended upon the Personhood of the Son.

A very thorough paper has been developed on this by a Catholic Legate in 2006. You can find it: http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 01:36:03 PM 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.”
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2009, 01:44:24 PM »

Dear Chrisb,

You have gone to much trouble to assemble your quotes although you responded so quickly I would wonder if you have appropriated material from someone's website?   But I find myself lacking the energy to address them,    As you know we have traversed this ground in great depth several times on CAF and we have never reached a solution.  If CAF had not obliterated all the very valuable archives which held these discussions, we could have simply taken material from there, but alas, it was all destroyed.  Some of it was the fruit of much labour and research and it was sad to loose it in just one instant.

It was always Apotheoun who provided the best evidence for the Eastern view of the filioque.  I hope that he will see this thread and participate.  It is much more convincing to Catholics such as yourself when it is a fellow Catholic explaining trinitarian theology and the filioque.

Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2009, 01:59:10 PM »

If CAF had not obliterated all the very valuable archives which held these discussions, we could have simply taken material from there, but alas, it was all destroyed.  Some of it was the fruit of much labour and research and it was sad to loose it in just one instant.
Indeed!  Cry
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 #37 on: January 30, 2009, 01:59:21 PM »

Dear Chrisb,

You have gone to much trouble to assemble your quotes although you responded so quickly I would wonder if you have appropriated material from someone's website?   But I find myself lacking the energy to address them,    As you know we have traversed this ground in great depth several times on CAF and we have never reached a solution.  If CAF had not obliterated all the very valuable archives which held these discussions, we could have simply taken material from there, but alas, it was all destroyed.  Some of it was the fruit of much labour and research and it was sad to loose it in just one instant.

It was always Apotheoun who provided the best evidence for the Eastern view of the filioque.  I hope that he will see this thread and participate.  It is much more convincing to Catholics such as yourself when it is a fellow Catholic explaining trinitarian theology and the filioque.


Yes, this is very lamentable for it is true I have labored over this issue a great deal on CAF with you and many others but so often I am met with the polemic rejection off-hand. Intellectually, I can't accept that as an answer in good conscience Father.

The paper I linked to is one that very thoroughly makes the Western case for the filioque's legitimacy. Do you, or anyone, have something more substantial besides the kinds of polemical argument that I tend to find in Orthodox Apologetic materials?

I'm not trying to come off condescending and if that is how I do come off please pardon me, Father. I am simply at the point where emotional-laden appeals simply aren't convincing. Again pardon me is I am speaking too boldly Father.
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.”
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2009, 02:00:23 PM »

With much deference I proceed on the course to discuss this very challenging and difficult topic well aware of St. Gregory's cautions...


Ah, I see that what you have provided is simply lifted from Mark Bonocore's polemical writing.  Bonocore is a kind of enfant terrible among Catholic apologists and they find his style unacceptable.

For example, have a look at what the Catholic Mark Poulson says about Mark Bonocore.

Here is just a couple of samples:

"Bonocore is an archetypical fundamentalist, in the bad sense of the word. That is, Bonocore's reasoning is viciously circular, his thought is shallow, his attitude is arrogant, and he is as incapable of being on the receiving end of a dialogue as a brick is of being a dartboard."

"He is a grown man with a four year-old's understanding of the faith, and he holds on to that faith with the grip and pugnaciousness of a rabid bulldog."


Given all that, it is surprising that you want to associate yourself with Bonocore and use his writings against the Orthodox.


For more Catholic opinion of the man (some of it is humorous if you're in the mood) go to:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/bonocore01.html#matt2

« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 02:03:27 PM by Irish Hermit » 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 #39 on: January 30, 2009, 02:04:12 PM »

Ah, I see that what you have provided is simply lifted from Mark Bonocore's polemical writing.  Bonocore is a kind of enfant terrible among Catholic apologists and they find his style unacceptable.

For example, have a look at what the Catholic Mark Poulson says about Mark Bonocore.

Here is just a couple of samples:

"Bonocore is an archetypical fundamentalist, in the bad sense of the word. That is, Bonocore's reasoning is viciously circular, his thought is shallow, his attitude is arrogant, and he is as incapable of being on the receiving end of a dialogue as a brick is of being a dartboard."

"He is a grown man with a four year-old's understanding of the faith, and he holds on to that faith with the grip and pugnaciousness of a rabid bulldog."

See how they love one another, these Catholic apologists!!!!! 

For more (some of it is humorous if you're in the mood) go to:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/bonocore01.html#matt2

Father,

I am far more interested in understanding the counter-argument to the man's evidence and logic than criticisms of his maturity or character in the Faith. I'm not sure the later undermines the former. With all due respect.
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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2009, 02:16:09 PM »

Dear Chrisb,

You have gone to much trouble to assemble your quotes although you responded so quickly I would wonder if you have appropriated material from someone's website?   But I find myself lacking the energy to address them,    As you know we have traversed this ground in great depth several times on CAF and we have never reached a solution.  If CAF had not obliterated all the very valuable archives which held these discussions, we could have simply taken material from there, but alas, it was all destroyed.  Some of it was the fruit of much labour and research and it was sad to loose it in just one instant.

It was always Apotheoun who provided the best evidence for the Eastern view of the filioque.  I hope that he will see this thread and participate.  It is much more convincing to Catholics such as yourself when it is a fellow Catholic explaining trinitarian theology and the filioque.


Yes, this is very lamentable for it is true I have labored over this issue a great deal on CAF with you and many others but so often I am met with the polemic rejection off-hand. Intellectually, I can't accept that as an answer in good conscience Father.

The paper I linked to is one that very thoroughly makes the Western case for the filioque's legitimacy. Do you, or anyone, have something more substantial besides the kinds of polemical argument that I tend to find in Orthodox Apologetic materials?

The fact that the Vatican forbids the Filioque to be inserted into the Creed in the original Greek, because the result is heretical even by the Vatican's standards, signals that it is illegitimate.

IF you can come up with a patristic or scriptural argument that you can say τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς Καὶ  τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, then you have a defense.  If not, Bonocore (who is know to have his name attached to several dumb things, e.g. claiming that Theodotius gave the title EP to the patriarch of Constantinople because Gratian gave the pagan title pontifax maximus to the Pope of Rome) can multiply the development of papers until the second coming: the Church says "NO."
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2009, 02:23:42 PM »

I am far more interested in understanding the counter-argument to the man's evidence and logic than criticisms of his maturity or character in the Faith.

Let's look at his opening words...

Quote
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified."

The Western Church, first in A.D. 589 at the regional council of Toledo, amended this statement to include:

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son (i.e., Filioque). With the Father and the Son, He is worshipped and glorified."

Now, while it took quite some time for the Eastern Church to become aware of, and offended by, this Western amendment
...

Notice the truly dishonest use of the words "amended" and "amendment."  It may fool Catholics but it is an immediate signal to any Orthodox person that Bonocore is playing dirty with his presuppositions.  At this point I would throw up my hands and not bother reading further.

We found that he did the same with other polemical stuff presented on CAF from Bonocore's writings.   He uses patristic quotes which are truncated or simply mangled in order to bolster a Catholic doctrinal point.  Whether he does this knowingly or whether he is the victim of previous Catholic apologists who have altered the quotes, I do not know.   But nothing about him inspires confidence.    We spent hours on CAF showing where his quotes were fraudulent.  I am not sure if I can be bothered combing thorugh his article on the filioque and all its claimed quotes from the Fathers.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 02:43:02 PM by Irish Hermit » 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 #42 on: January 30, 2009, 02:51:25 PM »

Notice the truly dishonest use of the words "amended" and "amendment."  It may fool Catholics but it is an immediate signal to any Orthodox person that Bonocore is playing dirty with his presuppositions.  At this point I would throw up my hands and not bother reading further.

Father please help me to understand the reasoning we should be offended by Bonocore's use of these words? Pardon me if I am overlooking the obvious.

Quote
We found that he did the same with other polemical stuff presented on CAF from Bonocore's writings.   He uses patristic quotes which are truncated or simply mangled in order to bolster a Catholic doctrinal point.  Whether he does this knowingly or whether he is the victim of previous Catholic apologists who have altered the quotes, I do not know.   But nothing about him inspires confidence.    We spent hours on CAF showing where his quotes were fraudulent.  I am not sure if I can be bothered combing thorugh his article on the filioque and all its claimed quotes from the Fathers.

I'm not attempting to burden you or anyone here with a systematic critique of Bonocore's paper I was interested in perhaps an Orthodox Scholar might have a resource that would counter his arguments that we might study.

"The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church  twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences." (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)

For example, what is Bishop Kallistos Ware missing when he says that this controversy is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences?

I believe my personal struggle primarily rests in the Patristic Argument not in the fact that Latin and Greek use different verbage to express the same or similar ideas of procession...
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 02:53:32 PM 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.”
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2009, 09:53:22 PM »

[I'm not attempting to burden you or anyone here with a systematic critique of Bonocore's paper I was interested in perhaps an Orthodox Scholar might have a resource that would counter his arguments that we might study.
You could probably look at Metropolitan John Zizioulas' response to the initiative of Pope John Paul II in getting a dialogue under way regarding the filioque.

Here is Metropolitan John's monograph:

One Single Source: An Orthodox Response to the Clarification on the Filioque
By Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/john_zizioulas_single_source.htm

And here is the Vatican paper prepared under Pope John Paul's instructions to which the Metropolitan was responding:

Clarification: THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity


http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM

Another well researched response to the Vatican Clarification is that of Jean Claude Larchet.

There have been one or two other Orthodox responses to the Pope's initiative and somewhere someone has conveniently gathered them on one webpage.  Can anyone find it?


From Apotheoun:

Problems with the Vatican's Clarification on the Filioque have been addressed in various threads here at the Byzantine Forum already.

Click the links below to read more:

Divine Essence / Energies

The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Error?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 10:15:58 PM by Irish Hermit » 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 #44 on: January 30, 2009, 10:27:53 PM »


You could probably look at Metropolitan John Zizioulas' response to the initiative of Pope John Paul II in getting a dialogue under way regarding the filioque.

And here is the Vatican paper prepared under Pope John Paul's instructions to which the Metropolitan was responding:

Clarification: THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity

Another well researched response to the Vatican Clarification is that of Jean Claude Larchet.

There have been one or two other Orthodox responses to the Pope's initiative and somewhere someone has conveniently gathered them on one webpage.  Can anyone find it?

From Apotheoun:

Problems with the Vatican's Clarification on the Filioque have been addressed in various threads here at the Byzantine Forum already.

Click the links below to read more:

Divine Essence / Energies

The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Error?

Thank you Fr. Ambrose. I will endeavor to read these links.

You may or may not know but you played a very productive role in my inquiry into Holy Orthodoxy. It's been quite a struggle Father but I don't regret the journey. My prayers are with you for playing the role you did to open the eyes of many to Holy Orthodoxy on CAF. At times, I was a stout defender of the Roman Catholic Church and her dogmas and teachings and on many occasions we debated with much zeal.

With that said could you comment on this...

"The Filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote The Orthodox Church  twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences." (Bishop Kallistos Ware, Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby's A Voice from the Byzantine East, p.43)

For example, what is Bishop Kallistos Ware missing when he says that this controversy is more in the area of semantics than in any basic doctrinal differences?

Thank you for your patience and unfailing pursuit to preach Orthodoxy.

Grace and Peace.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 10:32:13 PM 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.”
Tags: filioque 
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.154 seconds with 72 queries.