OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 29, 2014, 03:42:38 AM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: is this heretical?  (Read 1160 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« on: August 21, 2009, 10:59:48 AM »

please set this straight, is this heretical

The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father through the Son.

Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2009, 11:15:55 AM »

The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father through the Son.

A number of Church Fathers, as well as modern Orthodox theologians, have spoken of procession dia tou uiou (through the son). Biggest being St. Basil the Great, St. Maximos the Confessor and St. John the Damascene.

Think you're on safe ground.  Wink

FYI, they also emphasize the Father is THE aitia (sole cause) of the Son and the Spirit.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2009, 11:27:14 AM »

just to clarify, which among the 4 is a heresy

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father through the Son.

2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father and the Son.

3. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father through the Son.

4. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son.



The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeusis) from the Father through the Son.

A number of Church Fathers, as well as modern Orthodox theologians, have spoken of procession dia tou uiou (through the son). Biggest being St. Basil the Great, St. Maximos the Confessor and St. John the Damascene.

Think you're on safe ground.  Wink

FYI, they also emphasize the Father is THE aitia (sole cause) of the Son and the Spirit.
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2009, 11:48:22 AM »

just to clarify, which among the 4 is a heresy

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father through the Son.

2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father and the Son.

3. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father through the Son.

4. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son.

The first two don't make any sense. Aitia is a noun, not a verb. To proienai is usually used by the Greek Fathers to refer to the Spirit's "progression" or even worldly manifestation, i.e. proceeding forth unto the Church and filling Her with Grace. Thus, an Orthodox could agree with either 3 or 4.

You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out. Along similar lines, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae in the 13th century declared that the Spirit proceeds eternally and according to essence ONLY from the Father. So, if you consider that binding, then any Patristic language that suggests otherwise should be interpreted in that light, and it would be a heretical no-no to speak of proceeding from the Father through the Son (ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon).

Personally, I say just stick with the Creed of 381 and leave it at that. Why bother with anything else?

If you want to read a summary of the history and theological implications, go here: http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 12:10:00 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2009, 11:52:47 AM »

haha! im not going to the filioque as there are a lot of discussion on that. I'm just looking on the greek position on the procession of the holy spirit

You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out.




Fixed quote tags...  -PtA
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 01:30:41 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2009, 11:57:36 AM »

are the statements below a heresy?

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai or ekporeusis) from the Son

2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Son




haha! im not going to the filioque as there are a lot of discussion on that. I'm just looking on the greek position on the procession of the holy spirit



You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out.
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 #6 on: August 21, 2009, 12:00:34 PM »

are the statements below a heresy?

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai or ekporeusis) from the Son

yes. Even your Vatican says so now.

Quote
2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Son

No.




haha! im not going to the filioque as there are a lot of discussion on that. I'm just looking on the greek position on the procession of the holy spirit



You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out.
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
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: AOCA
Posts: 4,928



« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2009, 12:49:00 PM »

Quote
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων· φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.

Τὸν δι ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.

Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.

Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς.

Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός.

Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.

Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.

Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.

Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν.

Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.

Ἀμήν.
Quote
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the world to come. Amen.
Logged
marlo
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 84


« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2009, 11:49:39 PM »

so if the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae is really binding, are we to suggest that the Eastern Fathers who spoke of "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" are heretics as well?



just to clarify, which among the 4 is a heresy

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father through the Son.

2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father and the Son.

3. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father through the Son.

4. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son.

The first two don't make any sense. Aitia is a noun, not a verb. To proienai is usually used by the Greek Fathers to refer to the Spirit's "progression" or even worldly manifestation, i.e. proceeding forth unto the Church and filling Her with Grace. Thus, an Orthodox could agree with either 3 or 4.

You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out. Along similar lines, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae in the 13th century declared that the Spirit proceeds eternally and according to essence ONLY from the Father. So, if you consider that binding, then any Patristic language that suggests otherwise should be interpreted in that light, and it would be a heretical no-no to speak of proceeding from the Father through the Son (ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon).

Personally, I say just stick with the Creed of 381 and leave it at that. Why bother with anything else?

If you want to read a summary of the history and theological implications, go here: http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
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 #9 on: August 21, 2009, 11:58:24 PM »

so if the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae is really binding, are we to suggest that the Eastern Fathers who spoke of "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" are heretics as well?

No.  Why do you ask?



just to clarify, which among the 4 is a heresy

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father through the Son.

2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father and the Son.

3. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father through the Son.

4. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son.

The first two don't make any sense. Aitia is a noun, not a verb. To proienai is usually used by the Greek Fathers to refer to the Spirit's "progression" or even worldly manifestation, i.e. proceeding forth unto the Church and filling Her with Grace. Thus, an Orthodox could agree with either 3 or 4.

You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out. Along similar lines, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae in the 13th century declared that the Spirit proceeds eternally and according to essence ONLY from the Father. So, if you consider that binding, then any Patristic language that suggests otherwise should be interpreted in that light, and it would be a heretical no-no to speak of proceeding from the Father through the Son (ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon).

Personally, I say just stick with the Creed of 381 and leave it at that. Why bother with anything else?

If you want to read a summary of the history and theological implications, go here: http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html
« Last Edit: August 21, 2009, 11:59:26 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 84


« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2009, 12:38:02 AM »

so why they are not heretics if the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae view "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon"  heretical?


so if the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae is really binding, are we to suggest that the Eastern Fathers who spoke of "ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon" are heretics as well?

No.  Why do you ask?



just to clarify, which among the 4 is a heresy

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father through the Son.

2. The Holy Spirit proceeds (aitia) from the Father and the Son.

3. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father through the Son.

4. The Holy Spirit proceeds (proienai) from the Father and the Son.

The first two don't make any sense. Aitia is a noun, not a verb. To proienai is usually used by the Greek Fathers to refer to the Spirit's "progression" or even worldly manifestation, i.e. proceeding forth unto the Church and filling Her with Grace. Thus, an Orthodox could agree with either 3 or 4.

You're going to get into trouble if you say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father and the Son." That's when St. Photios will call you out. Along similar lines, the Pan-Orthodox Council of Blachernae in the 13th century declared that the Spirit proceeds eternally and according to essence ONLY from the Father. So, if you consider that binding, then any Patristic language that suggests otherwise should be interpreted in that light, and it would be a heretical no-no to speak of proceeding from the Father through the Son (ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon).

Personally, I say just stick with the Creed of 381 and leave it at that. Why bother with anything else?

If you want to read a summary of the history and theological implications, go here: http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/2003filioque.html

Logged
Tags: filioque 
Pages: 1   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 0.076 seconds with 38 queries.