OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 02:35:52 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholicism makes more sense to me intellectually than Orthodoxy?  (Read 30453 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #360 on: January 27, 2010, 09:13:22 PM »

^ BTW, if the Creed was intended to define everything that was essential, why does it not mention the fact that Christ's has two wills and two energies?

I don't know, maybe we should ask Pope Honorius.  Grin

Would it be acceptable for one of the Orthodox Churches to add something to the creed about the two wills of Christ?



Yours in Christ
Joe
Sure, why not? As long as its in keeping with the orthodox faith, I don't see a problem with it.
The Fathers of Constantinople I and Ephesus (and Constantinople IV (879)) did.
I don't agree.

Clarification, please.  Do you disagree with the Fathers' position as mentioned above, or with ialmisry's assertion that the Fathers took that position?
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #361 on: January 27, 2010, 09:23:04 PM »

ialmisry,
A few posts ago you stated the following:
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.
The Catholic Church agrees. The Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds in the sense that in Greek ekporeusis implies procession as from a cause.

But in Latin procedit does not specifically mean proceeding as from a cause. It merely means to come from. And as far as we witness the procession of the Holy Spirit we know he finds His cause in the Father, but He is given to us via the Son. So from our point of view, He proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Later in the same post you stated:
With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?

The filioque does not make the Holy Spirit begotten. It only means He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Again, by this we do not mean the Holy Spirit spirates from both as from a single cause, but spirates from both as in a transmission for lack of a better word.

Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #362 on: January 27, 2010, 09:28:39 PM »

yes, when a clarification clouds the issue, well, it's not really a clarification, is it?

The clarification was not meant for the Greeks as their language allowed for the Creed as originally written to be understood properly. But in Latin, the Creed left room for a misunderstanding as to the equality of the three Persons of the Godhead.

Both East and West should be considerate and mindful of the heresies each had to contend with as well as the nuances differing languages manifest in a plain understanding of a very complicated subject.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #363 on: January 27, 2010, 09:40:42 PM »

I believe the RCC contradicted itself by affirming and helping formulate the Creed...

Having a hand in the original formulation did not exempt them from heretics misunderstanding the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity when the Creed was expressed to the West at large in Latin.

Quote
1. Is it possible to affirm the Creed (w/o filoque) and be in error? No.

Not any more, but those who read it in Latin 1000 years ago may have misunderstood the equality of the three Persons of the Trinity. That's precisely why the Filioque was added in the West.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,458



« Reply #364 on: January 27, 2010, 09:52:06 PM »

yes, when a clarification clouds the issue, well, it's not really a clarification, is it?

The clarification was not meant for the Greeks as their language allowed for the Creed as originally written to be understood properly. But in Latin, the Creed left room for a misunderstanding as to the equality of the three Persons of the Godhead.
No, it didn't.

We had plenty of Latin speakers.  We still do: Romanian, after Slavonic/Slavic (and Ge'ez/Amaharic), is the largest Orthodox language, well ahead of Greek.  St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, came from what was Yugoslavia, as did Constantine, Justinian, etc. all Latin speakers.  And they had no confusion as to the equality of the Persons.


Quote
Both East and West should be considerate and mindful of the heresies each had to contend with as well as the nuances differing languages manifest in a plain understanding of a very complicated subject.
The heresy supposed to be dealt with, so the Vatican tells us, was Arianism.  We dealt with that in the East: in fact, after the Creed of Constantinople I was formed it disappeared in the East.  We had far, FAR more langauges to deal with in the East, and none needed filioque, including the LARGE Latin speaking population in the Balkans, which St. Jerome states had proved itself immune to Arianism.
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #365 on: January 27, 2010, 10:08:34 PM »

ialmisry, awesome responses.  A true rhetorician at work!
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 10:09:15 PM by Alveus Lacuna » 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 #366 on: January 27, 2010, 10:15:29 PM »

The Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church:

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)


It draws it's argument from these Proofs from Holy Scripture:

a) The Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of Holy Writ, is not merely the Spirit of the Father (Mt. 10,20: "It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you"; cf. John 15,26 : I Cor. 2, II et seq.), but also the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4, 6: "God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts"), the Spirit of Jesus (Apostles 16, 7: "And the spirit of Jesus suffered them not"), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8, 9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His"). If the designation "spirit of the Father" expresses an original reference to the Father (spiramen Patris or spiratus a Patre), as the Greeks admit, then the expression "Spirit of the Son" must analogously express an original connection with the Son ( spiramen Filii or spiratus a Filio).

b) The Holy Spirit is sent not only from the Father (John 14, 16, 26), but also from the Son, John 15, 26: "The Paraclete Whom I will send you from the Father" ; cf. John 16, 7; Luke 24, 49; John 20, 22. This external mission (ad extra) is to a certain extent the continuation of the Eternal Procession in time. From the mission one can therefore infer the Eternal Procession. The external production corresponds to the mission, and the eternal being produced corresponds to the being sent. As, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and from the Son, it must be inferred that He is produced by the Father and by the Son.

c) The Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son. John 16, 12 et seq. : "What things soever He shall hear He shall speak. He shall glorify me ; because He shall receive of mine and shall show it to you." The hearing and receiving of knowledge can be understood of a Divine Person only in the sense that He receives the Divine Knowledge and, with it, the identical Divine Essence from all eternity from another Divine Person through communication of Essence. As the Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son he must proceed from the Son as the Son, who receives His knowledge from the Father (John 8, 26 et seq.), proceeds from the Father. St. Augustine comments on this passage: "from each He will hear it, from whom He proceeds. Hearing is for Him knowing, but knowing is Being." (In Ioan. tr. 99, 4.)

That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from One Single Principle and through One Single Spiration, is clear from John 16, 15: "All that the Father has, is mine." If the Son, by virtue of His eternal generation from the Father, possesses 'everything that the Father possesses except the Fatherhood and the ungeneratedness which are not communicable, then He msut also possess the power of spiration (vis spirativa) and with it the being a Principle in relation to the Holy Spirit.

Proof from Tradition:


The Latin Fathers preferred the co-ordination formula: ex Patre et Filio (filioque), the Greek the subordinating formula: ex Patre per Filium. Tertullian employs both forms, but explains the co-ordinating formula in the sense of the subordinating one. Adv. Prax. 4 : "I do not derive the Spirit other wise than from the Father through the Son (a Patre per Filium). Op. cit. 8 : "the Third is the Spirit proceeding from God (the Father) and from the Son (a Deo et filii), as the third from the root through the bud is the fruit." St. Hilary, under Greek influence, uses the subordinating formula : "From thee (the Father) through him (the Son) is thy Holy Spirit" (De Trin. XII 56). St. Ambrose teaches that "the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds from the Father and the Son, cannot be separated from the Father nor from the Son" (De Spiritu Sancto I 120). St. Augustine establishes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the son (de utroque) by a detailed scriptural proof (In Ioan. tr. 99, 6 ; De Trin. XV 27, 48).

Origen uses the subordination phrase : "the Holy Spirit is the first of everything by the Father through the Son" ; "The Son gives to His hypostatis not only that he is, but also that he is wise, understanding and just" (Comm. in Ioan. II 10 (6), 75-76). St. Athanasius declares: "The same peculiar relationship in which we know the Son to be with the Father, governs, as wel shall find, also that which is between the Spirit and the Son. And so the Son speaks : 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine (John 16, 15), so we shall find, that all this is also through the Son in the Spirit" (Ep. ad Serap. 3, I). St. Basil teaches that "the goodness and the sanctity and the kingly dignity characteristic of God the Father is transmitted from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit" (De Spiritu Sancto 18, 47). The three Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory Naxianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) compare the relationship of the three Persons to each other with the links of a chain. The example is based on the subordinating formula "from the Father through the Son."

St. Didymus of Alexandria, St. Ephiphanius of Salamis and St. Cyril of Alexandria employ, even if not exclusively the co-ordinating formula (filioque). Cf. St. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 7 : "the Holy Spirit is from the same Essence of the Father and of the Son.: 16.8 : "From the Father and the Son, the third according to his name." Cf. Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto 34; Cyril of Al ; Thes. de sancta et consbust. Trin. 34.

St. John of Damascus rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, nevertheless he teaches that He is the spirit of the Son and that He proceeds through the Son from the Father (De fide orth. 18, 12). In saying this he does not deny that the Son is a Principle of the Holy Spirit, but only that unlike the Father He is not the Primitive Principle.

The co-ordinating formula (filioque) and the subordinating formula (per filium) concur essentially, in so far as they both attest that both the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Spirit and they also complement each other. While in the former the unicity and the indivisibility of the Principle ar above all expressed, the latter effectively stresses that the Father is the Primitive Principle (cf. St. Augustine, De Trin. XV 17, 29: de quo procedit principaliter), and that the Son as "God from God" is the Derived Principle, in so far as He, with His Essence, receives the power of spiration from the Father. Cf. D 691.

This is all pre-Vatican II and is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I accept it as the broadest understand of the Faith from the Fathers. It excludes nothing that the Fathers have taught and offers the teaching humbly and with care. I think the Orthodox, in the modern day, have blinded themselves by Polemics against the Roman Church and have, in this case, drawn too narrowly the doctrine.

I cannot deny the 'orthodoxy' of the doctrine but I can recognize criticism in changing the Creed without the acceptance of the whole Church. I don't think the Western Church doesn't share in this belief and I could see a day when it is removed so that we might share 'one' Creed.

Peace.
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.”
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #367 on: January 27, 2010, 10:50:05 PM »

yes, when a clarification clouds the issue, well, it's not really a clarification, is it?

The clarification was not meant for the Greeks as their language allowed for the Creed as originally written to be understood properly. But in Latin, the Creed left room for a misunderstanding as to the equality of the three Persons of the Godhead.
No, it didn't.

We had plenty of Latin speakers.  We still do: Romanian, after Slavonic/Slavic (and Ge'ez/Amaharic), is the largest Orthodox language, well ahead of Greek.  St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, came from what was Yugoslavia, as did Constantine, Justinian, etc. all Latin speakers.  And they had no confusion as to the equality of the Persons.


Quote
Both East and West should be considerate and mindful of the heresies each had to contend with as well as the nuances differing languages manifest in a plain understanding of a very complicated subject.
The heresy supposed to be dealt with, so the Vatican tells us, was Arianism.  We dealt with that in the East: in fact, after the Creed of Constantinople I was formed it disappeared in the East.  We had far, FAR more langauges to deal with in the East, and none needed filioque, including the LARGE Latin speaking population in the Balkans, which St. Jerome states had proved itself immune to Arianism.

The fact that folks like Justinian and Jerome were not confused does not mean nobody else was or could be confused.

The West used the Filioque to combat Arianism, but that is not to say the Filioque was necessary. But hindsight is 20/20. The West did what it thought it needed to do. Also, me using this as a defense of the actions of the West in no way implies the actions were necessary in the East. I'm glad the East dealt with Arianism it's own way.

I'm afraid your anti-Catholicism is getting in the way of intellectual honesty.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,458



« Reply #368 on: January 27, 2010, 11:37:08 PM »

The Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church:

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)


It draws it's argument from these Proofs from Holy Scripture:

a) The Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of Holy Writ, is not merely the Spirit of the Father (Mt. 10,20: "It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you"; cf. John 15,26 : I Cor. 2, II et seq.), but also the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4, 6: "God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts"), the Spirit of Jesus (Apostles 16, 7: "And the spirit of Jesus suffered them not"), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8, 9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His"). If the designation "spirit of the Father" expresses an original reference to the Father (spiramen Patris or spiratus a Patre), as the Greeks admit, then the expression "Spirit of the Son" must analogously express an original connection with the Son ( spiramen Filii or spiratus a Filio).

What Greeks?

If the "Spirit of the Son" is an original reference, so the "Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of Jesus" must too, which means that the Spirit proceeds from the Incarnation.



Quote
b) The Holy Spirit is sent not only from the Father (John 14, 16, 26), but also from the Son, John 15, 26: "The Paraclete Whom I will send you from the Father" ; cf. John 16, 7; Luke 24, 49; John 20, 22. This external mission (ad extra) is to a certain extent the continuation of the Eternal Procession in time. From the mission one can therefore infer the Eternal Procession.

No, one can't, any more than one can infer from the fact that the Son is incarnate by the Holy Spirit (and the Virgin Mary) that the Son is begotten of the Spirit.

Quote
The external production corresponds to the mission, and the eternal being produced corresponds to the being sent. As, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and from the Son, it must be inferred that He is produced by the Father and by the Son.

See how conveluted this becomes?


Quote
c) The Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son. John 16, 12 et seq. : "What things soever He shall hear He shall speak. He shall glorify me ; because He shall receive of mine and shall show it to you." The hearing and receiving of knowledge can be understood of a Divine Person only in the sense that He receives the Divine Knowledge

assUmption of Divine Knowledge.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. I Corin. 2:11.

Quote
and, with it, the identical Divine Essence from all eternity from another Divine Person through communication of Essence. As the Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son

assUmption.

Quote
he must proceed from the Son as the Son,

Error

Quote
who receives His knowledge from the Father (John 8, 26 et seq.), proceeds from the Father.

Error.  The Son is begotten, He does not proceed.  And if the Spirit proceeds based on this arguement, then the Spirit is begotten into the Son and then proceeds.

Quote
St. Augustine comments on this passage: "from each He will hear it, from whom He proceeds. Hearing is for Him knowing, but knowing is Being." (In Ioan. tr. 99, 4.)

Was this an error St. Augustine retracted?

Quote
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from One Single Principle and through One Single Spiration, is clear from John 16, 15: "All that the Father has, is mine." If the Son, by virtue of His eternal generation from the Father, possesses 'everything that the Father possesses except the Fatherhood and the ungeneratedness which are not communicable, then He msut also possess the power of spiration (vis spirativa) and with it the being a Principle in relation to the Holy Spirit.

And then the Spirit is begotten, how else can He be the Son's?  As all the Son has is eternal generated from the Father.

Quote
Proof from Tradition:

The Latin Fathers preferred the co-ordination formula: ex Patre et Filio (filioque), the Greek the subordinating formula: ex Patre per Filium. Tertullian employs both forms, but explains the co-ordinating formula in the sense of the subordinating one.

Should have stayed with that thought.

Quote
Adv. Prax. 4 : "I do not derive the Spirit other wise than from the Father through the Son (a Patre per Filium). Op. cit. 8 : "the Third is the Spirit proceeding from God (the Father) and from the Son (a Deo et filii), as the third from the root through the bud is the fruit." St. Hilary, under Greek influence, uses the subordinating formula

Should have stayed with that thought.

Quote
: "From thee (the Father) through him (the Son) is thy Holy Spirit" (De Trin. XII 56). St. Ambrose teaches that "the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds from the Father and the Son, cannot be separated from the Father nor from the Son" (De Spiritu Sancto I 120). St. Augustine establishes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the son (de utroque) by a detailed scriptural proof (In Ioan. tr. 99, 6 ; De Trin. XV 27, 48).

Evidently too clever by half.


Quote
Origen uses the subordination phrase : "the Holy Spirit is the first of everything by the Father through the Son" ; "The Son gives to His hypostatis not only that he is, but also that he is wise, understanding and just" (Comm. in Ioan. II 10 (6), 75-76). St. Athanasius declares: "The same peculiar relationship in which we know the Son to be with the Father, governs, as wel shall find, also that which is between the Spirit and the Son. And so the Son speaks : 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine (John 16, 15), so we shall find, that all this is also through the Son in the Spirit" (Ep. ad Serap. 3, I). St. Basil teaches that "the goodness and the sanctity and the kingly dignity characteristic of God the Father is transmitted from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit" (De Spiritu Sancto 18, 47). The three Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory Naxianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) compare the relationship of the three Persons to each other with the links of a chain. The example is based on the subordinating formula "from the Father through the Son."

Should have stayed with that thought.


Quote
St. Didymus of Alexandria, St. Ephiphanius of Salamis and St. Cyril of Alexandria employ, even if not exclusively the co-ordinating formula (filioque). Cf. St. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 7 : "the Holy Spirit is from the same Essence of the Father and of the Son.: 16.8 : "From the Father and the Son, the third according to his name." Cf. Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto 34; Cyril of Al ; Thes. de sancta et consbust. Trin. 34.

St. John of Damascus rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, nevertheless he teaches that He is the spirit of the Son and that He proceeds through the Son from the Father (De fide orth. 18, 12). In saying this he does not deny that the Son is a Principle of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, he does.


Quote
but only that unlike the Father He is not the Primitive Principle.

We can read what he says. We don't need to read anything into it.

Quote
The co-ordinating formula (filioque) and the subordinating formula (per filium) concur essentially, in so far as they both attest that both the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Spirit and they also complement each other.

No, as stated they are opposed to each other.

Quote
While in the former the unicity and the indivisibility of the Principle ar above all expressed, the latter effectively stresses that the Father is the Primitive Principle (cf. St. Augustine, De Trin. XV 17, 29: de quo procedit principaliter), and that the Son as "God from God" is the Derived Principle, in so far as He, with His Essence, receives the power of spiration from the Father. Cf. D 691.

So the Spirit is begotten then spirated, and so the derived derived (2x) God.


Quote
This is all pre-Vatican II and is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I accept it as the broadest understand of the Faith from the Fathers. It excludes nothing that the Fathers have taught and offers the teaching humbly and with care. I think the Orthodox, in the modern day, have blinded themselves by Polemics against the Roman Church and have, in this case, drawn too narrowly the doctrine.
Dogma is like that: move not the landmark which your Fathers have set up and wander neither to the left nor the right. That title and jot thing.


Quote
I cannot deny the 'orthodoxy' of the doctrine but I can recognize criticism in changing the Creed without the acceptance of the whole Church. I don't think the Western Church doesn't share in this belief and I could see a day when it is removed so that we might share 'one' Creed.
Amen.
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: 37,458



« Reply #369 on: January 27, 2010, 11:49:16 PM »

yes, when a clarification clouds the issue, well, it's not really a clarification, is it?

The clarification was not meant for the Greeks as their language allowed for the Creed as originally written to be understood properly. But in Latin, the Creed left room for a misunderstanding as to the equality of the three Persons of the Godhead.
No, it didn't.

We had plenty of Latin speakers.  We still do: Romanian, after Slavonic/Slavic (and Ge'ez/Amaharic), is the largest Orthodox language, well ahead of Greek.  St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, came from what was Yugoslavia, as did Constantine, Justinian, etc. all Latin speakers.  And they had no confusion as to the equality of the Persons.


Quote
Both East and West should be considerate and mindful of the heresies each had to contend with as well as the nuances differing languages manifest in a plain understanding of a very complicated subject.
The heresy supposed to be dealt with, so the Vatican tells us, was Arianism.  We dealt with that in the East: in fact, after the Creed of Constantinople I was formed it disappeared in the East.  We had far, FAR more langauges to deal with in the East, and none needed filioque, including the LARGE Latin speaking population in the Balkans, which St. Jerome states had proved itself immune to Arianism.

The fact that folks like Justinian and Jerome were not confused does not mean nobody else was or could be confused.

Arius was quite confused.  He refused correction.

Quote
The West used the Filioque to combat Arianism,

Filioque was inserted at Arianism's funeral:it was confessed after Arianism's last gasp.


Quote
but that is not to say the Filioque was necessary.

Hold on to that thought.

Quote
But hindsight is 20/20. The West did what it thought it needed to do.

So did Judas and the Sanhendrin.

Quote
Also, me using this as a defense of the actions of the West in no way implies the actions were necessary in the East. I'm glad the East dealt with Arianism it's own way.

Too bad the far West didn't stick with it, like Pope Leo III.


Quote
I'm afraid your anti-Catholicism is getting in the way of intellectual honesty.

Being a member of the Catholic Church, I'm not anti-Catholic, just pro-Orthodoxy.  The more the proponents defend the filioque, the more it proves itself unnecessary and troublesome, not the least its Subordinationism.
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 #370 on: January 28, 2010, 12:29:40 AM »

The Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church:

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)


It draws it's argument from these Proofs from Holy Scripture:

a) The Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of Holy Writ, is not merely the Spirit of the Father (Mt. 10,20: "It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you"; cf. John 15,26 : I Cor. 2, II et seq.), but also the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4, 6: "God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts"), the Spirit of Jesus (Apostles 16, 7: "And the spirit of Jesus suffered them not"), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8, 9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His"). If the designation "spirit of the Father" expresses an original reference to the Father (spiramen Patris or spiratus a Patre), as the Greeks admit, then the expression "Spirit of the Son" must analogously express an original connection with the Son ( spiramen Filii or spiratus a Filio).

What Greeks?

If the "Spirit of the Son" is an original reference, so the "Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of Jesus" must too, which means that the Spirit proceeds from the Incarnation.
[/quote]

So are you suggesting that there was a mixture of the Godhead at the Incarnation? Are you saying that God Changes because of the Incarnation? That doesn't strike me as 'orthodox' understanding of the Incarnation.



Quote
Quote
b) The Holy Spirit is sent not only from the Father (John 14, 16, 26), but also from the Son, John 15, 26: "The Paraclete Whom I will send you from the Father" ; cf. John 16, 7; Luke 24, 49; John 20, 22. This external mission (ad extra) is to a certain extent the continuation of the Eternal Procession in time. From the mission one can therefore infer the Eternal Procession.

No, one can't, any more than one can infer from the fact that the Son is incarnate by the Holy Spirit (and the Virgin Mary) that the Son is begotten of the Spirit.

I see what you are saying here but you seem to be cutting up the argument.

Quote
Quote
The external production corresponds to the mission, and the eternal being produced corresponds to the being sent. As, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and from the Son, it must be inferred that He is produced by the Father and by the Son.

See how conveluted this becomes?

If you understood Platonism, I honestly think you'd understand the reasoning as quite a few of the Fathers did.

Quote
Quote
c) The Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son. John 16, 12 et seq. : "What things soever He shall hear He shall speak. He shall glorify me ; because He shall receive of mine and shall show it to you." The hearing and receiving of knowledge can be understood of a Divine Person only in the sense that He receives the Divine Knowledge

assUmption of Divine Knowledge.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. I Corin. 2:11.

The argument is presenting the Platonic idea that to 'know is to possess' as in 'intellection' the whole purpose of the contemplation of the divine. They aren't presuming 'Divine Knowledge' in the sense that you are inferring by your Scriptural text. What they are saying is to 'know the Son' is to in some way 'possess Him'... this possession 'assumes' procession (i.e. spiration).

Quote
Quote
and, with it, the identical Divine Essence from all eternity from another Divine Person through communication of Essence. As the Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son

assUmption.

Again not an assumption but a very normal presumption from the way the Early Church Fathers took Platonic Metaphysics as a defacto reality.
Quote
Quote
who receives His knowledge from the Father (John 8, 26 et seq.), proceeds from the Father.

Error.  The Son is begotten, He does not proceed.  And if the Spirit proceeds based on this arguement, then the Spirit is begotten into the Son and then proceeds.

Define the difference between begetting and processing outside of identifiers for the Son and the Spirit?

Quote
Quote
St. Augustine comments on this passage: "from each He will hear it, from whom He proceeds. Hearing is for Him knowing, but knowing is Being." (In Ioan. tr. 99, 4.)

Was this an error St. Augustine retracted?

I don't know but I'd love to know if you find anything.

Quote
Quote
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from One Single Principle and through One Single Spiration, is clear from John 16, 15: "All that the Father has, is mine." If the Son, by virtue of His eternal generation from the Father, possesses 'everything that the Father possesses except the Fatherhood and the ungeneratedness which are not communicable, then He msut also possess the power of spiration (vis spirativa) and with it the being a Principle in relation to the Holy Spirit.

And then the Spirit is begotten, how else can He be the Son's?  As all the Son has is eternal generated from the Father.

Again, define the difference from begotten-ness and Procession outside of an identifiers for the Son and the Spirit?


Quote
Quote
Adv. Prax. 4 : "I do not derive the Spirit other wise than from the Father through the Son (a Patre per Filium). Op. cit. 8 : "the Third is the Spirit proceeding from God (the Father) and from the Son (a Deo et filii), as the third from the root through the bud is the fruit." St. Hilary, under Greek influence, uses the subordinating formula

Should have stayed with that thought.

And I think it's an important point to state that I don't believe any of these Fathers thought that the co-ordinating formula was saying anything more than the subordinating formula. I understand that Orthodox believe that they do but are you really saying that St. Hilary and St. Ambrose were heretics? Are you ready to strike them from veneration... i.e. imitation?

Quote
Quote
: "From thee (the Father) through him (the Son) is thy Holy Spirit" (De Trin. XII 56). St. Ambrose teaches that "the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds from the Father and the Son, cannot be separated from the Father nor from the Son" (De Spiritu Sancto I 120). St. Augustine establishes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the son (de utroque) by a detailed scriptural proof (In Ioan. tr. 99, 6 ; De Trin. XV 27, 48).

Evidently too clever by half.

As I've asked before are you ready to say that St. Ambrose and St. Augustine were heretics? Are you ready to strike them from veneration and imitation?


Quote
Quote
Origen uses the subordination phrase : "the Holy Spirit is the first of everything by the Father through the Son" ; "The Son gives to His hypostatis not only that he is, but also that he is wise, understanding and just" (Comm. in Ioan. II 10 (6), 75-76). St. Athanasius declares: "The same peculiar relationship in which we know the Son to be with the Father, governs, as wel shall find, also that which is between the Spirit and the Son. And so the Son speaks : 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine (John 16, 15), so we shall find, that all this is also through the Son in the Spirit" (Ep. ad Serap. 3, I). St. Basil teaches that "the goodness and the sanctity and the kingly dignity characteristic of God the Father is transmitted from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit" (De Spiritu Sancto 18, 47). The three Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory Naxianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) compare the relationship of the three Persons to each other with the links of a chain. The example is based on the subordinating formula "from the Father through the Son."

Should have stayed with that thought.

What was 'not' transmitted through the Son... from the Son to the Spirit?


Quote
Quote
St. Didymus of Alexandria, St. Ephiphanius of Salamis and St. Cyril of Alexandria employ, even if not exclusively the co-ordinating formula (filioque). Cf. St. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 7 : "the Holy Spirit is from the same Essence of the Father and of the Son.: 16.8 : "From the Father and the Son, the third according to his name." Cf. Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto 34; Cyril of Al ; Thes. de sancta et consbust. Trin. 34.

St. John of Damascus rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, nevertheless he teaches that He is the spirit of the Son and that He proceeds through the Son from the Father (De fide orth. 18, 12). In saying this he does not deny that the Son is a Principle of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, he does.

Some would argue that St. John of Damascus was arguing Primitive Principle of the Father... ?

The Point of this would to harmonize him with the rest of the Saints. Those who clearly point to Principle present in both the Father and the Son...
Quote
Quote
The co-ordinating formula (filioque) and the subordinating formula (per filium) concur essentially, in so far as they both attest that both the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Spirit and they also complement each other.

No, as stated they are opposed to each other.

So you say but we don't see St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and others drawing such a distinction. Yes some prefer the subordinating formula but other clearly use both and some the co-ordinating formula.

Quote
Quote
While in the former the unicity and the indivisibility of the Principle ar above all expressed, the latter effectively stresses that the Father is the Primitive Principle (cf. St. Augustine, De Trin. XV 17, 29: de quo procedit principaliter), and that the Son as "God from God" is the Derived Principle, in so far as He, with His Essence, receives the power of spiration from the Father. Cf. D 691.

So the Spirit is begotten then spirated, and so the derived derived (2x) God.

I think you are reading more into begotten-ness and spiration than the distinct personalities of the Son and the Spirit. Again let me ask, as this seems to be a tread with your opposition, define the difference between Begotten and Proceed other than personal identifiers with the Son and the Spirit?


Quote
Quote
This is all pre-Vatican II and is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I accept it as the broadest understand of the Faith from the Fathers. It excludes nothing that the Fathers have taught and offers the teaching humbly and with care. I think the Orthodox, in the modern day, have blinded themselves by Polemics against the Roman Church and have, in this case, drawn too narrowly the doctrine.
Dogma is like that: move not the landmark which your Fathers have set up and wander neither to the left nor the right. That title and jot thing.

I was told a long while ago that Dogmas are 'light posts to light our way to enlightenment' but they should not be used to 'prop us up as if we were drunks'. For each journeyman, the will illuminate the terrain in which we find ourselves traveling and we need not be concerned if that terrain does not contain every landmark described by another traveller on the way.

Quote
Quote
I cannot deny the 'orthodoxy' of the doctrine but I can recognize criticism in changing the Creed without the acceptance of the whole Church. I don't think the Western Church doesn't share in this belief and I could see a day when it is removed so that we might share 'one' Creed.
Amen.
[/quote]

Amen.
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.”
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,227



« Reply #371 on: January 28, 2010, 12:31:19 AM »

I agree with your prior post that is about semantics and anger. To me, this whole spiration/one principle tangent is simply intellectual acrobatics by RCC to somehow justify the position they took 1000 years ago. If they can somehow bring it back square they will feel vindicated- "we weren't wrong, we were just saying something else truthful".

But it does not seem to me that the Catholic Church made a mistake 1000 years ago. They clarified the language of the Creed as it was written in Latin. In Latin Filioque means from the Son but the Latin word for proceed does not imply an origination in the sense of begetting. I see no contradiction with either the current Catholic view or the Orthodox view.

I agree with android. It does seem like acrobatics, and I don't see how it could be anything but acrobatics. If the Latins meant "through the son" why not say per filium? I think the old adage "Say what you mean and mean what you say" applies here in every sense of the phrase.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
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: 37,458



« Reply #372 on: January 28, 2010, 01:18:17 AM »

The Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church:

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a Single Principle through a Single Spiration. (De fide.)


It draws it's argument from these Proofs from Holy Scripture:

a) The Holy Spirit, according to the teaching of Holy Writ, is not merely the Spirit of the Father (Mt. 10,20: "It is the Spirit of the Father that speaketh in you"; cf. John 15,26 : I Cor. 2, II et seq.), but also the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4, 6: "God sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts"), the Spirit of Jesus (Apostles 16, 7: "And the spirit of Jesus suffered them not"), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8, 9: "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His"). If the designation "spirit of the Father" expresses an original reference to the Father (spiramen Patris or spiratus a Patre), as the Greeks admit, then the expression "Spirit of the Son" must analogously express an original connection with the Son ( spiramen Filii or spiratus a Filio).

What Greeks?

If the "Spirit of the Son" is an original reference, so the "Spirit of Christ" and "the Spirit of Jesus" must too, which means that the Spirit proceeds from the Incarnation.

So are you suggesting that there was a mixture of the Godhead at the Incarnation?
No, the justification for the filioque does.


Quote
Are you saying that God Changes because of the Incarnation?

No, the justification for the filioque does.

Quote
That doesn't strike me as 'orthodox' understanding of the Incarnation.

It's not, which is yet another reason why we don't buy the justification of the filioque.




b) The Holy Spirit is sent not only from the Father (John 14, 16, 26), but also from the Son, John 15, 26: "The Paraclete Whom I will send you from the Father" ; cf. John 16, 7; Luke 24, 49; John 20, 22. This external mission (ad extra) is to a certain extent the continuation of the Eternal Procession in time. From the mission one can therefore infer the Eternal Procession.

No, one can't, any more than one can infer from the fact that the Son is incarnate by the Holy Spirit (and the Virgin Mary) that the Son is begotten of the Spirit.

I see what you are saying here but you seem to be cutting up the argument.

I want to cut it down.

The external production corresponds to the mission, and the eternal being produced corresponds to the being sent. As, according to the testimony of Holy Scripture, the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and from the Son, it must be inferred that He is produced by the Father and by the Son.

See how conveluted this becomes?

If you understood Platonism, I honestly think you'd understand the reasoning as quite a few of the Fathers did.

I'm not a Platonist, and neither is the Church, so my understanding of Platonism (and I understand it) is besides the point.

c) The Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son. John 16, 12 et seq. : "What things soever He shall hear He shall speak. He shall glorify me ; because He shall receive of mine and shall show it to you." The hearing and receiving of knowledge can be understood of a Divine Person only in the sense that He receives the Divine Knowledge

assUmption of Divine Knowledge.

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. I Corin. 2:11.

The argument is presenting the Platonic idea that to 'know is to possess' as in 'intellection' the whole purpose of the contemplation of the divine. They aren't presuming 'Divine Knowledge' in the sense that you are inferring by your Scriptural text. What they are saying is to 'know the Son' is to in some way 'possess Him'... this possession 'assumes' procession (i.e. spiration).

and that's an baseless assUmption.

and, with it, the identical Divine Essence from all eternity from another Divine Person through communication of Essence. As the Holy Spirit receives His knowledge from the Son

assUmption.

Again not an assumption but a very normal presumption from the way the Early Church Fathers took Platonic Metaphysics as a defacto reality.

Quote

Before we go further on this, maybe you should comment on (Pseudo-)Dionysios The Celestial Hierarchy: just batpized Platonism?

who receives His knowledge from the Father (John 8, 26 et seq.), proceeds from the Father.

Error.  The Son is begotten, He does not proceed.  And if the Spirit proceeds based on this arguement, then the Spirit is begotten into the Son and then proceeds.

Define the difference between begetting and processing outside of identifiers for the Son and the Spirit?

The Fathers are clear that you cannot, except to note that they differ, and therefore are two different hypostasis.

That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from One Single Principle and through One Single Spiration, is clear from John 16, 15: "All that the Father has, is mine." If the Son, by virtue of His eternal generation from the Father, possesses 'everything that the Father possesses except the Fatherhood and the ungeneratedness which are not communicable, then He msut also possess the power of spiration (vis spirativa) and with it the being a Principle in relation to the Holy Spirit.

And then the Spirit is begotten, how else can He be the Son's?  As all the Son has is eternal generated from the Father.

Again, define the difference from begotten-ness and Procession outside of an identifiers for the Son and the Spirit?

Same answer as above, except to point out that having the processor process out of the begotten confuses the two.

Adv. Prax. 4 : "I do not derive the Spirit other wise than from the Father through the Son (a Patre per Filium). Op. cit. 8 : "the Third is the Spirit proceeding from God (the Father) and from the Son (a Deo et filii), as the third from the root through the bud is the fruit." St. Hilary, under Greek influence, uses the subordinating formula

Should have stayed with that thought.

And I think it's an important point to state that I don't believe any of these Fathers thought that the co-ordinating formula was saying anything more than the subordinating formula. I understand that Orthodox believe that they do but are you really saying that St. Hilary and St. Ambrose were heretics? Are you ready to strike them from veneration... i.e. imitation?

You said St. Hilary said "through the Son." On Ambrose:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.ii.ii.x.html

: "From thee (the Father) through him (the Son) is thy Holy Spirit" (De Trin. XII 56). St. Ambrose teaches that "the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds from the Father and the Son, cannot be separated from the Father nor from the Son" (De Spiritu Sancto I 120). St. Augustine establishes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the son (de utroque) by a detailed scriptural proof (In Ioan. tr. 99, 6 ; De Trin. XV 27, 48).

Evidently too clever by half.

As I've asked before are you ready to say that St. Ambrose and St. Augustine were heretics? Are you ready to strike them from veneration and imitation?

Answered above: I'll just add that no saint is infallible.


Origen uses the subordination phrase : "the Holy Spirit is the first of everything by the Father through the Son" ; "The Son gives to His hypostatis not only that he is, but also that he is wise, understanding and just" (Comm. in Ioan. II 10 (6), 75-76). St. Athanasius declares: "The same peculiar relationship in which we know the Son to be with the Father, governs, as wel shall find, also that which is between the Spirit and the Son. And so the Son speaks : 'All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine (John 16, 15), so we shall find, that all this is also through the Son in the Spirit" (Ep. ad Serap. 3, I). St. Basil teaches that "the goodness and the sanctity and the kingly dignity characteristic of God the Father is transmitted from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit" (De Spiritu Sancto 18, 47). The three Cappadocians (Basil, Gregory Naxianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) compare the relationship of the three Persons to each other with the links of a chain. The example is based on the subordinating formula "from the Father through the Son."

Should have stayed with that thought.

What was 'not' transmitted through the Son... from the Son to the Spirit?

The hypostasis of the Spirit.


St. Didymus of Alexandria, St. Ephiphanius of Salamis and St. Cyril of Alexandria employ, even if not exclusively the co-ordinating formula (filioque). Cf. St. Epiphanius, Ancoratus 7 : "the Holy Spirit is from the same Essence of the Father and of the Son.: 16.8 : "From the Father and the Son, the third according to his name." Cf. Didymus, De Spiritu Sancto 34; Cyril of Al ; Thes. de sancta et consbust. Trin. 34.

St. John of Damascus rejects the notion that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, nevertheless he teaches that He is the spirit of the Son and that He proceeds through the Son from the Father (De fide orth. 18, 12). In saying this he does not deny that the Son is a Principle of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, he does.

Some would argue that St. John of Damascus was arguing Primitive Principle of the Father... ?

They would be wrong: St. John is not talking of primitive versus secondary principle but the sole principle.

Quote
The Point of this would to harmonize him with the rest of the Saints. Those who clearly point to Principle present in both the Father and the Son...

Why would you chose to harmonize errors?

The co-ordinating formula (filioque) and the subordinating formula (per filium) concur essentially, in so far as they both attest that both the Father and the Son are the Principle of the Holy Spirit and they also complement each other.

No, as stated they are opposed to each other.

So you say but we don't see St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and others drawing such a distinction. Yes some prefer the subordinating formula but other clearly use both and some the co-ordinating formula.

The latter are the real problem.

While in the former the unicity and the indivisibility of the Principle ar above all expressed, the latter effectively stresses that the Father is the Primitive Principle (cf. St. Augustine, De Trin. XV 17, 29: de quo procedit principaliter), and that the Son as "God from God" is the Derived Principle, in so far as He, with His Essence, receives the power of spiration from the Father. Cf. D 691.

So the Spirit is begotten then spirated, and so the derived derived (2x) God.

I think you are reading more into begotten-ness and spiration than the distinct personalities of the Son and the Spirit. Again let me ask, as this seems to be a tread with your opposition, define the difference between Begotten and Proceed other than personal identifiers with the Son and the Spirit?

According to the Fathers, you can't, which is why filioque is such a serious problem.



This is all pre-Vatican II and is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it. I accept it as the broadest understand of the Faith from the Fathers. It excludes nothing that the Fathers have taught and offers the teaching humbly and with care. I think the Orthodox, in the modern day, have blinded themselves by Polemics against the Roman Church and have, in this case, drawn too narrowly the doctrine.
Dogma is like that: move not the landmark which your Fathers have set up and wander neither to the left nor the right. That title and jot thing.

I was told a long while ago that Dogmas are 'light posts to light our way to enlightenment' but they should not be used to 'prop us up as if we were drunks'. For each journeyman, the will illuminate the terrain in which we find ourselves traveling and we need not be concerned if that terrain does not contain every landmark described by another traveller on the way.

If it points you in the wrong direction, you had better pay atttention.


I cannot deny the 'orthodoxy' of the doctrine but I can recognize criticism in changing the Creed without the acceptance of the whole Church. I don't think the Western Church doesn't share in this belief and I could see a day when it is removed so that we might share 'one' Creed.
Amen.
Amen.
Amen.
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
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #373 on: January 28, 2010, 09:47:52 AM »

The debate over the Filioque is done as far as I'm concerned. The statements of Met. Ware, St. Maximus, and even the OrthoWiki artie http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque make it clear to me that there is no theological problems with the Filioque. The debate taking place on this thread are simply the old West vs. East anger and a war of semantics.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,182


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #374 on: January 28, 2010, 07:30:37 PM »

I actually don't have a problem with the Creed being altered a bit to clarify matters. I would be in favor of changing the current wording from "from the Son" to "through the Son" because it might clarify what the orthodox position on the procession of the Holy Spirit really is for a Catholic. This is not because the current wording is wrong; it could just be worded more clearly.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,928


"My god is greater."


« Reply #375 on: January 28, 2010, 08:53:23 PM »

The debate over the Filioque is done as far as I'm concerned. The statements of Met. Ware, St. Maximus, and even the OrthoWiki artie http://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque make it clear to me that there is no theological problems with the Filioque. The debate taking place on this thread are simply the old West vs. East anger and a war of semantics.

St. Maximus gave an interpretation of "filioque" that was different from the interpretation enshrined at Florence. As for Met. Ware and the OrthoWiki article, why are they more authoritative than Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #376 on: January 28, 2010, 08:54:56 PM »

I actually don't have a problem with the Creed being altered a bit to clarify matters. I would be in favor of changing the current wording from "from the Son" to "through the Son" because it might clarify what the orthodox position on the procession of the Holy Spirit really is for a Catholic. This is not because the current wording is wrong; it could just be worded more clearly.

I agree with you, Papist.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #377 on: April 28, 2010, 10:33:12 PM »

I heard an AFR Fr. Thomas Hopko lecture today on the Trinity. There were some points stated within his lecture, in regards to the Holy Trinity, that I had never heard before. I would love to hear the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic take on the following two bullet points.

In his lecture Fr. Thomas made the following statements:
Quote
  • The "One True God" is not the Trinity.
  • The "One True God" is God the Father.
  • He called my current understanding of the Trinity "Modalism." My current understanding is simple: one God, three persons.

Fr. Hopko also explained that the Son and the Spirit are of the same Divinity as the Father. And that Jesus is of the same humanity as us as well, but those were not new ideas to me obviously.

I must admit, Fr. Hopko's explanation made more sense to me than any I've ever heard before, but I'm interested in hearing more opinions.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 10:35:07 PM by militantsparrow » Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #378 on: April 28, 2010, 10:46:27 PM »

As for Met. Ware and the OrthoWiki article, why are they more authoritative than Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus?

I just wanted to second this question.
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #379 on: April 28, 2010, 11:02:59 PM »

As for Met. Ware and the OrthoWiki article, why are they more authoritative than Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus?
I just wanted to second this question.

Are there not Orthodox saints that shared with Met. Ware the same understanding of the Filioque?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,552



« Reply #380 on: April 28, 2010, 11:14:45 PM »

Are there not Orthodox saints that shared with Met. Ware the same understanding of the Filioque?

Was there a discussion on this point that I missed? Can someone give me a summary of the views of Met. Kallistos? I skimmed over some of the parts in The Orthodox Church that discussed the filioque, and while outlining a couple positions, Met. Kallistos didn't seem to take one position or another himself, other than to say that the issue should not simply be dismissed as unimportant. Met. Kallistos says that the filioque dispute "is not trivial. Since belief in the Trinity lies at the very heart of the Christian faith, a tiny difference in Trinitarian theology may well have repercussions upon every aspect of Christian life and thought" (The Orthodox Church, 1993 edition, pp. 210-211). Has Met. Kallistos become more of a "dove" (to use his term) since then?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 11:17:04 PM by Asteriktos » 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: 37,458



« Reply #381 on: April 28, 2010, 11:30:40 PM »

As for Met. Ware and the OrthoWiki article, why are they more authoritative than Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus?
I just wanted to second this question.

Are there not Orthodox saints that shared with Met. Ware the same understanding of the Filioque?

The article you link too doesn't give an opinion from Met. Ware:what exactly is being attributed to him?

Not that it matters: it any one understood the filioque as being in any fashion Orthodox, after the Vatican's dogmatization of it, they wouldn't be an Orthodox saint.
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
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #382 on: April 29, 2010, 06:05:24 PM »

I heard an AFR Fr. Thomas Hopko lecture today on the Trinity. There were some points stated within his lecture, in regards to the Holy Trinity, that I had never heard before. I would love to hear the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic take on the following two bullet points.

In his lecture Fr. Thomas made the following statements:
Quote
  • The "One True God" is not the Trinity.
  • The "One True God" is God the Father.
  • He called my current understanding of the Trinity "Modalism." My current understanding is simple: one God, three persons.

Fr. Hopko also explained that the Son and the Spirit are of the same Divinity as the Father. And that Jesus is of the same humanity as us as well, but those were not new ideas to me obviously.

I must admit, Fr. Hopko's explanation made more sense to me than any I've ever heard before, but I'm interested in hearing more opinions.

This is an interesting issue.  The assertion that the one True God is God the Father represents the Cappadocian take of things.  But would Athanasius and Cyril agree?  Must all Orthodox agree?  Compare the Orthodox/Reformed agreement on the Holy Trinity:

Quote
Since there is only one Trinity in Unity, and one Unity in Trinity, there is only one indivisible Godhead, and only one Arche (arche) or Monarchia (monarchia). As such, however, Gregory the Theologian reminds us, "It is a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person" (Or. 29.2). "The Godhead is one in Three, and the Three are One, in whom all the Godhead is, or, to be more precise, who are the Godhead" (Or. 39.11). "Each person is God when considered in himself; as the Father, so the Son, and as the Son, so the Holy Spirit; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because consubstantial; one God because of the Monarchy. I cannot think of the One without being enlightened by the splendour of the Three; not can I distinguish them without being carried back to the One" (Gregory the Theologian, Or. 40.41). "In proclaiming the divine Monarchia we do not err, but confess the Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, One Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (ten triada, monada en triadi, kai triada en monadi, mian theoteta patros kai huiou, kai hagiou pneumatos) (Epiphanius, Haer. 62.3). The mia arche or Monarchia is inseparable from the Trinity, the Monas from the Trias. As such the Monarchy of the Father within the Trinity is not exclusive of the Monarchy of the whole undivided Trinity in relation to the whole of creation. Hence all worship and glorification by the creature is offered "to God the Father through the Son and in the Spirit" or "to the Father with the Son and together with the Holy Spirit", that is, to the one indivisible God who is Three in One and One in Three, the Holy Trinity who is blessed for ever.

Sometimes matters are more complicated than they first appear ... Smiley

Logged

militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #383 on: April 29, 2010, 09:27:14 PM »

Are there not Orthodox saints that shared with Met. Ware the same understanding of the Filioque?

Was there a discussion on this point that I missed? Can someone give me a summary of the views of Met. Kallistos? I skimmed over some of the parts in The Orthodox Church that discussed the filioque, and while outlining a couple positions, Met. Kallistos didn't seem to take one position or another himself, other than to say that the issue should not simply be dismissed as unimportant. Met. Kallistos says that the filioque dispute "is not trivial. Since belief in the Trinity lies at the very heart of the Christian faith, a tiny difference in Trinitarian theology may well have repercussions upon every aspect of Christian life and thought" (The Orthodox Church, 1993 edition, pp. 210-211). Has Met. Kallistos become more of a "dove" (to use his term) since then?

You can listen to, Metropolitan Ware's take on the matter here http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/primacy_and_the_pope and hear it for yourself.

I'm not trying to overstate anything. I just believe that it would seem to me that the filioque is not that big of a point of contention any longer. It is essentially a matter of language or at the most an issue of acceptable differences in Eastern and Western expressions of the same truth.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #384 on: April 29, 2010, 09:29:47 PM »

As for Met. Ware and the OrthoWiki article, why are they more authoritative than Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus?
I just wanted to second this question.

Are there not Orthodox saints that shared with Met. Ware the same understanding of the Filioque?

The article you link too doesn't give an opinion from Met. Ware:what exactly is being attributed to him?

Not that it matters: it any one understood the filioque as being in any fashion Orthodox, after the Vatican's dogmatization of it, they wouldn't be an Orthodox saint.

The article I linked to was not meant to be attributed to Metropolitan Ware. It was simply one example of current Orthodox thought on the filioque. I do not expect the Eastern Churches to ever accept it, but it does seem as if it is no longer a major stumbling block for reunion between the two lungs of the Church.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #385 on: April 29, 2010, 09:39:43 PM »

I heard an AFR Fr. Thomas Hopko lecture today on the Trinity. There were some points stated within his lecture, in regards to the Holy Trinity, that I had never heard before. I would love to hear the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic take on the following two bullet points.

In his lecture Fr. Thomas made the following statements:
Quote
  • The "One True God" is not the Trinity.
  • The "One True God" is God the Father.
  • He called my current understanding of the Trinity "Modalism." My current understanding is simple: one God, three persons.

Fr. Hopko also explained that the Son and the Spirit are of the same Divinity as the Father. And that Jesus is of the same humanity as us as well, but those were not new ideas to me obviously.

I must admit, Fr. Hopko's explanation made more sense to me than any I've ever heard before, but I'm interested in hearing more opinions.

This is an interesting issue.  The assertion that the one True God is God the Father represents the Cappadocian take of things.  But would Athanasius and Cyril agree?  Must all Orthodox agree?  Compare the Orthodox/Reformed agreement on the Holy Trinity:

Quote
Since there is only one Trinity in Unity, and one Unity in Trinity, there is only one indivisible Godhead, and only one Arche (arche) or Monarchia (monarchia). As such, however, Gregory the Theologian reminds us, "It is a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person" (Or. 29.2). "The Godhead is one in Three, and the Three are One, in whom all the Godhead is, or, to be more precise, who are the Godhead" (Or. 39.11). "Each person is God when considered in himself; as the Father, so the Son, and as the Son, so the Holy Spirit; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because consubstantial; one God because of the Monarchy. I cannot think of the One without being enlightened by the splendour of the Three; not can I distinguish them without being carried back to the One" (Gregory the Theologian, Or. 40.41). "In proclaiming the divine Monarchia we do not err, but confess the Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, One Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (ten triada, monada en triadi, kai triada en monadi, mian theoteta patros kai huiou, kai hagiou pneumatos) (Epiphanius, Haer. 62.3). The mia arche or Monarchia is inseparable from the Trinity, the Monas from the Trias. As such the Monarchy of the Father within the Trinity is not exclusive of the Monarchy of the whole undivided Trinity in relation to the whole of creation. Hence all worship and glorification by the creature is offered "to God the Father through the Son and in the Spirit" or "to the Father with the Son and together with the Holy Spirit", that is, to the one indivisible God who is Three in One and One in Three, the Holy Trinity who is blessed for ever.

Sometimes matters are more complicated than they first appear ... Smiley



Thank you, Akimel.
Compression of the nature of the Trinity is certainly beyond my grasp. What I liked about Fr. Hopko's explanation was the clear distinction he made between the three Persons and how he tied those distinctions back to scripture. I tend to make Them too similar in my own mind and maybe blur the line a bit.

What I think Fr. Hopko gets wrong is that he says the Trinity is not the one true God. But if we say that the Father is God, Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then mustn't we conclude that the three together are God--one Triune God?

I don't think all Orthodox agree with Fr. Hopko, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling that he might be a little closer to the fringe than the Priests who frequent this board.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,524


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #386 on: April 29, 2010, 09:51:33 PM »

Quote
What I think Fr. Hopko gets wrong is that he says the Trinity is not the one true God.


militantsparrow, I truly hope you've misunderstood Fr Thomas on this. Or, if he did indeed say this, this is, to put it VERY mildly, cause for great concern for his status as a priest.

What does Orthodox hymnography say about the Holy Trinity? Hymnography, like iconography, represents the distillation, the core and essence of the teachings of the Orthodox faith, irrespective of jurisdiction or geographic location or liturgical language used. There are dozens of short hymns (triadika, troitsny) dedicated to the Trinity, which are sung in many Orthodox services, particularly during the Canons at Matins. Never have I come across even a shred of evidence from these hymns that the Holy Trinity is not God. Rather, this point is made time and time again in these hymns. The relationship of the three Persons is also made abundantly clear.

"Agreed statements" are all very well and cute, but they ain't worth a hill of beans if they contradict Orthodox theology.
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #387 on: April 29, 2010, 10:25:28 PM »

Quote
What I think Fr. Hopko gets wrong is that he says the Trinity is not the one true God.


militantsparrow, I truly hope you've misunderstood Fr Thomas on this. Or, if he did indeed say this, this is, to put it VERY mildly, cause for great concern for his status as a priest.

What does Orthodox hymnography say about the Holy Trinity? Hymnography, like iconography, represents the distillation, the core and essence of the teachings of the Orthodox faith, irrespective of jurisdiction or geographic location or liturgical language used. There are dozens of short hymns (triadika, troitsny) dedicated to the Trinity, which are sung in many Orthodox services, particularly during the Canons at Matins. Never have I come across even a shred of evidence from these hymns that the Holy Trinity is not God. Rather, this point is made time and time again in these hymns. The relationship of the three Persons is also made abundantly clear.

"Agreed statements" are all very well and cute, but they ain't worth a hill of beans if they contradict Orthodox theology.

I did not misunderstand him, though if listened to in its full context, it might not be as blasphemous as my sound-bytes are making it sound. Here is the full podcast: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity
He starts building the argument at about 12:30, but it goes on through the rest of the podcast.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #388 on: April 29, 2010, 10:40:31 PM »

It was simply one example of current Orthodox thought on the filioque. I do not expect the Eastern Churches to ever accept it, but it does seem as if it is no longer a major stumbling block for reunion between the two lungs of the Church.

We will never accept the branch/universalist heresy. I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. She is undivided, and always has been. The Catholic Church does not exist in "parts" or "segments." We have two lungs and are breathing just fine. The Vatican is the on a respirator, needing a lung transplant from the True Church.

I don't say this to be rude or offensive, only to defend the True Orthodox Catholic position that is betrayed by some who wish to tickle ears and flatter. Kyrie Eleison.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 10:41:56 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #389 on: April 29, 2010, 11:04:54 PM »

We will never accept the branch/universalist heresy. I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. She is undivided, and always has been. The Catholic Church does not exist in "parts" or "segments." We have two lungs and are breathing just fine. The Vatican is the on a respirator, needing a lung transplant from the True Church.

I don't say this to be rude or offensive, only to defend the True Orthodox Catholic position that is betrayed by some who wish to tickle ears and flatter. Kyrie Eleison.

But many Orthodox leaders feel differently. Who is right? Why would I take your word over Metropolitan Ware?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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: 37,458



« Reply #390 on: April 29, 2010, 11:09:50 PM »

Are there not Orthodox saints that shared with Met. Ware the same understanding of the Filioque?

Was there a discussion on this point that I missed? Can someone give me a summary of the views of Met. Kallistos? I skimmed over some of the parts in The Orthodox Church that discussed the filioque, and while outlining a couple positions, Met. Kallistos didn't seem to take one position or another himself, other than to say that the issue should not simply be dismissed as unimportant. Met. Kallistos says that the filioque dispute "is not trivial. Since belief in the Trinity lies at the very heart of the Christian faith, a tiny difference in Trinitarian theology may well have repercussions upon every aspect of Christian life and thought" (The Orthodox Church, 1993 edition, pp. 210-211). Has Met. Kallistos become more of a "dove" (to use his term) since then?

You can listen to, Metropolitan Ware's take on the matter here http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/primacy_and_the_pope and hear it for yourself.

I'm not trying to overstate anything. I just believe that it would seem to me that the filioque is not that big of a point of contention any longer. It is essentially a matter of language or at the most an issue of acceptable differences in Eastern and Western expressions of the same truth.
No, unfortunately, it is not.  I often use Romanian, an Orthodox Latin language to point that out: the Orthodox Creed says "Care din Tatăl purcede" and Vatican's filioque reads "Care de la Tatăl şi de la Fiul purcede."  The do not read the same, they do not mean the same.  They don't describe the same God.  The differences are easily expressed.

The bold face demonstrates especially that it is not the same Faith:
The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246
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: 37,458



« Reply #391 on: April 29, 2010, 11:10:28 PM »

We will never accept the branch/universalist heresy. I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. She is undivided, and always has been. The Catholic Church does not exist in "parts" or "segments." We have two lungs and are breathing just fine. The Vatican is the on a respirator, needing a lung transplant from the True Church.

I don't say this to be rude or offensive, only to defend the True Orthodox Catholic position that is betrayed by some who wish to tickle ears and flatter. Kyrie Eleison.

But many Orthodox leaders feel differently. Who is right? Why would I take your word over Metropolitan Ware?
Take St. Photius' word over Met. Ware's (alleged) word.
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
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,860



« Reply #392 on: April 29, 2010, 11:28:49 PM »

Who is right? Why would I take your word over Metropolitan Ware?

Can you show me where he has said this? I have only seen the idea pushed by His All-Holiness Bartholomew, but it seems that he's made a lot of flimsy statements, unfortunately. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is not immune to error or even heresy, as we have seen many times in history. The branch theory is a heresy, because it alters the fundamental proclamations of the Creed regarding the nature of the Church.

I also know that you've been personally caught between Orthodox Catholicism and the Vatican's replica, and these sorts of statements by prominent Orthodox figures are dangerous because they remove any sense of urgency in conversion for you. They basically affirm your church, and say "don't worry about it, we are working it out on an official level. Stay put." That is a weak and pathetic witness (martyrdom) to the Truth. It is no witness.

This isn't about what I think. This is about what the Church teaches and has always taught, despite what a few figureheads might be rattling off today in the spirit of cordial ecumenical dinners which come with nice flights and hotel rooms, as well as hobnobbing with important political leaders. Nothing is more exciting to a dying patriarchate which needs a few new powerful friends.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2010, 11:30:32 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #393 on: April 30, 2010, 02:55:21 PM »

I heard an AFR Fr. Thomas Hopko lecture today on the Trinity. There were some points stated within his lecture, in regards to the Holy Trinity, that I had never heard before. I would love to hear the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic take on the following two bullet points.

In his lecture Fr. Thomas made the following statements:
Quote
  • The "One True God" is not the Trinity.
  • The "One True God" is God the Father.
  • He called my current understanding of the Trinity "Modalism." My current understanding is simple: one God, three persons.

Fr. Hopko also explained that the Son and the Spirit are of the same Divinity as the Father. And that Jesus is of the same humanity as us as well, but those were not new ideas to me obviously.

I must admit, Fr. Hopko's explanation made more sense to me than any I've ever heard before, but I'm interested in hearing more opinions.

Ummmmm. I think he was trying to make a more complicated point that doesn't seem to be clearly conveyed in what you have said here. I think the point he was trying to make is that the one essence of the Trinity has no existence in and of itself. The divine essence comes from the hypostasis of the Father and only has existence in and because of Him, not having some kind of existence common to the three that is above the Father. Latin Trinitarian theology traditionally has a higher emphasis on the unity of the substance of the Godhead, even to the point where it would sometimes seem that there is an existent essence that is shared by the three hypostases of the Trinity, yet is even more fundamental than them. The ultimate phrasing of the filioque, "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle", would seem to suggest that the Holy Spirit is proceeding from a principle that is shared by the Father and the Son, yet is equal to neither of them, thus seemingly suggesting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the substance of the Godhead.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #394 on: April 30, 2010, 02:57:16 PM »

As for Met. Ware and the OrthoWiki article, why are they more authoritative than Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus?
I just wanted to second this question.

Are there not Orthodox saints that shared with Met. Ware the same understanding of the Filioque?

Maximus the Confessors would appear to have, however it's important to note that he came before both Photios and Mark, and that Rome's definition of the filioque did progress in that time. I can't think of any significant Fathers after the time of Photios who shared that opinion.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #395 on: April 30, 2010, 02:59:48 PM »

I heard an AFR Fr. Thomas Hopko lecture today on the Trinity. There were some points stated within his lecture, in regards to the Holy Trinity, that I had never heard before. I would love to hear the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic take on the following two bullet points.

In his lecture Fr. Thomas made the following statements:
Quote
  • The "One True God" is not the Trinity.
  • The "One True God" is God the Father.
  • He called my current understanding of the Trinity "Modalism." My current understanding is simple: one God, three persons.

Fr. Hopko also explained that the Son and the Spirit are of the same Divinity as the Father. And that Jesus is of the same humanity as us as well, but those were not new ideas to me obviously.

I must admit, Fr. Hopko's explanation made more sense to me than any I've ever heard before, but I'm interested in hearing more opinions.

This is an interesting issue.  The assertion that the one True God is God the Father represents the Cappadocian take of things.  But would Athanasius and Cyril agree?  Must all Orthodox agree?  Compare the Orthodox/Reformed agreement on the Holy Trinity:

Quote
Since there is only one Trinity in Unity, and one Unity in Trinity, there is only one indivisible Godhead, and only one Arche (arche) or Monarchia (monarchia). As such, however, Gregory the Theologian reminds us, "It is a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person" (Or. 29.2). "The Godhead is one in Three, and the Three are One, in whom all the Godhead is, or, to be more precise, who are the Godhead" (Or. 39.11). "Each person is God when considered in himself; as the Father, so the Son, and as the Son, so the Holy Spirit; the Three One God when contemplated together; Each God because consubstantial; one God because of the Monarchy. I cannot think of the One without being enlightened by the splendour of the Three; not can I distinguish them without being carried back to the One" (Gregory the Theologian, Or. 40.41). "In proclaiming the divine Monarchia we do not err, but confess the Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, One Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (ten triada, monada en triadi, kai triada en monadi, mian theoteta patros kai huiou, kai hagiou pneumatos) (Epiphanius, Haer. 62.3). The mia arche or Monarchia is inseparable from the Trinity, the Monas from the Trias. As such the Monarchy of the Father within the Trinity is not exclusive of the Monarchy of the whole undivided Trinity in relation to the whole of creation. Hence all worship and glorification by the creature is offered "to God the Father through the Son and in the Spirit" or "to the Father with the Son and together with the Holy Spirit", that is, to the one indivisible God who is Three in One and One in Three, the Holy Trinity who is blessed for ever.

Sometimes matters are more complicated than they first appear ... Smiley



I thought the point was oversimplified and potentially erroneous if interpreted in a certain way anyway.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #396 on: April 30, 2010, 03:00:42 PM »

I'm not trying to overstate anything. I just believe that it would seem to me that the filioque is not that big of a point of contention any longer. It is essentially a matter of language or at the most an issue of acceptable differences in Eastern and Western expressions of the same truth.

And where do you get that idea from?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #397 on: April 30, 2010, 03:03:55 PM »

but it does seem as if it is no longer a major stumbling block for reunion

So long as we continue to recognize the expressions of Lyons II, Florence, and Trent on this matter as heretical, it will continue to be a major stumbling block for reunion. And if the ecumenists manage to enter into reunion in Rome but leave most of their flock behind who have not accepted the same compromises they have, it won't really have amounted to much.

between the two lungs of the Church.

Weren't the two lungs, when originally spoken of, supposed to be Western and Eastern Catholicism?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #398 on: April 30, 2010, 03:05:14 PM »

I don't think all Orthodox agree with Fr. Hopko, but I'm not sure. I have a feeling that he might be a little closer to the fringe than the Priests who frequent this board.

I just think either you didn't understand him clearly or he didn't not express himself clearly.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #399 on: April 30, 2010, 03:09:27 PM »

We will never accept the branch/universalist heresy. I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. She is undivided, and always has been. The Catholic Church does not exist in "parts" or "segments." We have two lungs and are breathing just fine. The Vatican is the on a respirator, needing a lung transplant from the True Church.

I don't say this to be rude or offensive, only to defend the True Orthodox Catholic position that is betrayed by some who wish to tickle ears and flatter. Kyrie Eleison.

But many Orthodox leaders feel differently. Who is right? Why would I take your word over Metropolitan Ware?

How has he contradicted what Alveus just said?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #400 on: April 30, 2010, 03:13:53 PM »

I did not misunderstand him, though if listened to in its full context, it might not be as blasphemous as my sound-bytes are making it sound. Here is the full podcast: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity
He starts building the argument at about 12:30, but it goes on through the rest of the podcast.

I just listened to 12:30 - 13:30, and it actually sounds like he's talking strictly about how the Bible phrases these matters, about which he is actually write about. Essentially the Father is the one hypostasis that the Bible explicitly refers to as God.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #401 on: April 30, 2010, 03:20:09 PM »

Later on, at about 16:00, when Presbyter Hopko speaks about Modalism, he does say some more things that would appear could be interpreted as un-Trinitarian. He refers to the Father as the one God rather than the Trinity. And he also seems to be avoiding identifying the Trinity as a singular being. However, I think this is simply untraditional language that is emphasizing the triple hypostatic nature of the Godhead while he affirms that the three hypostases are of the same divinity. So I think he is using potentially problematic language while not necessarily meaning something heretical by it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #402 on: April 30, 2010, 08:57:20 PM »

The bold face demonstrates especially that it is not the same Faith:
The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration . . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 246

ialmisry,
I agree that this definition does seem problematic. Many post Vatican II apologists seem to say that the teaching is "from the Father...through the Son" but traditionalists would argue that the correct interpretation is that which you quoted from the Catechism.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 626


militantsparrow
« Reply #403 on: April 30, 2010, 09:01:12 PM »

Take St. Photius' word over Met. Ware's (alleged) word.

ialmisry,
I understand what you are getting at, but it is not "alleged." You can listen to the podcast I linked to a few posts up to hear it for yourself. But I'm also not looking to get the truth from one person (Metropolitan Ware or St. Photius). I'm looking for the truth as proclaimed by the whole Church for all times everywhere. I believe the Orthodox take is the more prevalent among Church Fathers, but I don't think anyone can say that the Catholic position is completely without historical or Fatherly support.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,552



« Reply #404 on: April 30, 2010, 09:04:07 PM »

Quote
I'm looking for the truth as proclaimed by the whole Church for all times everywhere.

Then you're looking for something that will never be found, as St. Vincent of Lerins must have realised about his formula. Wink  Regarding Met. Kallistos, I haven't listened to what you linked to yet, but I expect to do so tomorrow.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   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 0.243 seconds with 72 queries.