OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 08:46:20 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholicism makes more sense to me intellectually than Orthodoxy?  (Read 31405 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #45 on: January 20, 2010, 02:32:24 PM »

Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Oh, so you're admitting that the Creed needed to be changed; that it was insufficiently composed and required further further clarification through expansion?

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.
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 #46 on: January 20, 2010, 02:33:58 PM »

No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.

As I understand it, it clarified the equality of the Son and the Father. I remember the very first time I encountered a Orthodox explanation of the Trinity, I recall thinking that the Father was the only non-contingent 'person' of the Godhead. I use that term specifically because it seems to fit early heresies criticisms of the Trinitarian doctrine.
There has to be a Son for there to be a Father. So much for non-contingent.

Ha, Ha. You are too much. No, I don't think that solves the real problem with 'begotton', 'non-begotten' and 'processing'.  The very extent of our use of language on this is the problem. I honestly don't blame anyone for the schisms over this as it is so muddled to begin with. Language never ascends to Mysteries, it always drags the Mysteries down and yes the Church as a whole, because this whole mess of articulating everything started with the Councils in the first place are to blame.

Quote
How do you handle the Subordinationism?

Of the Holy Spirit? No doubt it does create the perception doesn't it. Frankly, I don't have an answer for you. I don't honestly believe that 'any' of the articulations of the Trinitarian Doctrine are adequate thus my whole point. Mysteries are Mysteries... they can't be cognitively comprehended... they can only be encountered on a personal level. Yet the Church attempted to do so, time and again creating schism and factions vying for power and ultimately control over the Church.

Now, don't take my position to be that we cannot articulate the mysteries in language but we can't presume that such language is comprehensive.

I think this is the whole point when St. Isaac said with much emphasis, "The more a man’s tongue flees verbosity, the more his intellect is illumined so as to be able to discern deep thoughts; for the rational intellect is befuddled by verbosity. Who does not love a humble and meek man? Only proud men and slanderers, who are foreign to his work. Flee from discussions of dogma as from an unruly lion; and never embark upon them yourself, either with those raised in the Church, or with strangers".
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.”
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2010, 02:35:18 PM »

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.

I think that anathema was at the first Council...  Shocked
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2010, 02:55:28 PM »

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.

I think that anathema was at the first Council...  Shocked
No, the Second, and the Third.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2010, 02:57:45 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2010, 02:58:02 PM »

Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Oh, so you're admitting that the Creed needed to be changed; that it was insufficiently composed and required further further clarification through expansion?

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.
No, only to those who alter the faith contained in it.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #51 on: January 20, 2010, 03:00:22 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2010, 03:16:38 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2010, 03:21:25 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2010, 03:26:50 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2010, 03:30:33 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?
What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding? If you can't come up with one, then the problem is not solved.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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 #56 on: January 20, 2010, 03:53:26 PM »


The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

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

How can one be Begotten and have Spiration without contingency. Ultimately the Father said 'don't dwell on it'... it's a Mystery but we have to admit that the very use of these contingencies cause a logical problem. We must admit that our language is not capable of expressing the Trinity unless we are going to go down the route of Arius and make the Logos a Creation of the Father and so also the Holy Spirit as they are understood in Platonism (The One, The Logos, and The World-Soul). Emanationism.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2010, 03:58:56 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?
What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding?

God only knows. And we have leave it at that.


Quote
If you can't come up with one, then the problem is not solved.
I never thought of the Almighty as a problem.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2010, 04:03:50 PM »

Militantsparrow, may I assume that though you have identified yourself as Catholic, you have, in fact, intellectually stepped away from the Catholic Church and are investigating the respective claims of Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the intention of committing yourself to whichever Church is able to provide the most rationally compelling arguments and evidence?  I understand this process, but I have to wonder if it in fact is the right way to go about things. 

For example, you and your Orthodox dialogue partners are arguing about historical "facts," as if historical research alone could prove or disprove the claims of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.  Neither committed Catholics nor committed Orthodox read history in a "neutral" fashion.  For both the reading of history is informed by belief and dogma.  John Henry Newman explains:

Quote
Why should Ecclesiastical History, any more than the text of Scripture, contain in it “the whole counsel of God”? Why should private judgment be unlawful in interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority, and yet be lawful in the interpretation of history? … For myself, I would simply confess that no doctrine of the Church can be rigorously proved by historical evidence: but at the same time that no doctrine can be simply disproved by it. Historical evidence reaches a certain way, more or less, towards a proof of the Catholic doctrines; often nearly the whole way; sometimes it goes only as far as to point in their direction; sometimes there is only an absence of evidence for a conclusion contrary to them; nay, sometimes there is an apparent leaning of the evidence to a contrary conclusion, which has to be explained;—in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church. He who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic. It is the Church’s dogmatic use of History in which the Catholic believes; and she uses other informants also, Scripture, tradition, the ecclesiastical sense or phronema, and a subtle ratiocinative power, which in its origin is a divine gift. There is nothing of bondage or “renunciation of mental freedom” in this view, any more than in the converts of the Apostles believing what the Apostles might preach to them or teach them out of Scripture. (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)

Newman's argument obtains whether one is Catholic or Orthodox.  Why?  Because faith in the Church is as mysterious and supernatural as faith in Jesus Christ.  Does anyone truly believe that Jesus is risen because he has determined that a divine and supernatural act is the most probable explanation for the historical evidence?  Of course not.  If he did, his faith would be a flimsy reed indeed, just waiting to be crushed by the latest historian who claims he can prove that Jesus never existed or that his bones were stolen by the disciples. 

Newman dismissed the idea that faith in the Catholic Church was contingent upon proving the supremacy of the Pope.  He believed this was the wrong way to about things.  Newman did not come to believe in the claims of the Catholic Church because of the Pope.  He believed in the Pope because he first believed in the Catholic Church.  Newman came to believe in the claims of the Catholic Church because he became convinced that the notes of apostolicity, catholicity, unity, and sanctity were fully embodied in the Catholic Church. “To the poor is the Gospel preached,” Newman wrote. “Accordingly the notes of the Church are simple and easy, and obvious to all capacities. Let a poor man look at the Church of Rome, and he will see that it has that which no other Church has.” Newman was insistent that the infallibility of the Pope is not the basis of the Catholic religion. Catholic apologists need to learn from Newman on this point.  I suggest that one can mount a similar argument on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

I do think it is possible to read history "critically."  This critical approach requires one to bracket, as if were, one's dogmatic commitments and to weigh the evidence according to the criteria of secular historical science.  I believe it is helpful and necessary to listen to the judgments of "neutral" historians.  When one does, one discovers that the testimony of history is anything but obvious on the questions being discussed in this thread.  But the simple fact is, you aren't going to find critical historians on an internet forum like this.  History as presented by apologists is anything but neutral. 

Which is more reasonable, Catholicism or Orthodoxy?  It all depends on where one stands.  The committed Catholic will always find his religion to be eminently reasonable; ditto for the committed Orthodox.  So how does one negotiate their competing claims?  By all means continue to read, continue to assess the evidence and arguments; but ultimately, I think one simply needs to experience the faith as it is lived in each Church and see for oneself.  If one is concerned to discern which Church is truly apostolic and catholic, then perhaps Newman's counsel is apt:  Which Church would St Ambrose or St Athanasius recognize as the Church if he were to walk into a Catholic or Orthodox parish today?  In which Church are the notes of the Church most fully embodied and lived?   
 
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 #59 on: January 20, 2010, 04:15:33 PM »

but ultimately, I think one simply needs to experience the faith as it is lived in each Church and see for oneself.  If one is concerned to discern which Church is truly apostolic and catholic, then perhaps Newman's counsel is apt:  Which Church would St Ambrose or St Athanasius recognize as the Church if he were to walk into a Catholic or Orthodox parish today?  In which Church are the notes of the Church most fully embodied and lived?   

Father Bless,

I doubt any would recognize modern Catholicism in America, Father. I say this with all due respect and not in the spirit to harm anyone's commitment or devotion.

Some where, we went wrong Father.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2010, 05:09:02 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.

Are you joking me? Saying that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son and not just from the Father is not adding something to the substance of the Creed?
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 #61 on: January 20, 2010, 05:12:21 PM »


Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.

How so?
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 #62 on: January 20, 2010, 05:13:37 PM »

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.

I think that anathema was at the first Council...  Shocked

You're both wrong. It was at Ephesus.
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 #63 on: January 20, 2010, 05:15:22 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.

The Son and the Spirit are distinguished from each other because of their relationship to the Father being different. One is begotten and one is proceeding. Easy enough.
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 #64 on: January 20, 2010, 05:17:23 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?
What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding? If you can't come up with one, then the problem is not solved.

The Fathers explicitly said that we cannot know exactly what is meant by begetting or proceeding, but that they are certainly distinct from each other. To look at the terminology though, one appears to be a matter of generation and the other a matter of emission.
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
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 #65 on: January 20, 2010, 05:19:38 PM »

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.

I think that anathema was at the first Council...  Shocked

You're both wrong. It was at Ephesus.

Please correct us 'gently'...  Kiss
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.”
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2010, 05:21:58 PM »

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.

I think that anathema was at the first Council...  Shocked

You're both wrong. It was at Ephesus.

Please correct us 'gently'...  Kiss

Heh. Sorry.  Kiss
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
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,091


"My god is greater."


« Reply #67 on: January 20, 2010, 06:01:31 PM »

It was expanded once and for all at the Second Ecumenical council, and I believe there's an anathema on anyone who changes it further.

I think that anathema was at the first Council...  Shocked

You're both wrong. It was at Ephesus.

Yes, but the anathema referred to the creed as formulated at Nicaea.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
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 #68 on: January 20, 2010, 06:24:05 PM »


Yes, but the anathema referred to the creed as formulated at Nicaea.

So who is correct?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 06:24:36 PM by ignatius » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,091


"My god is greater."


« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2010, 06:27:31 PM »


Yes, but the anathema referred to the creed as formulated at Nicaea.

So who is correct?

The anathema was pronounced at Ephesus but the creed in question was the one formulated at Nicaea, not the later Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed we have today. So the question is, is the anathema against altering the text, or altering the faith represented by it?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2010, 07:33:02 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?
What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding?

God only knows. And we have leave it at that.


Quote
If you can't come up with one, then the problem is not solved.
I never thought of the Almighty as a problem.
I don't either. I think your denial of the Filioque creates a problem where there need not be one.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2010, 07:36:32 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.

Are you joking me? Saying that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son and not just from the Father is not adding something to the substance of the Creed?
No, I don't joke about such things. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is a Patristic teaching.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2010, 07:37:05 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.

The Son and the Spirit are distinguished from each other because of their relationship to the Father being different. One is begotten and one is proceeding. Easy enough.
What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2010, 07:37:40 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?
What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding? If you can't come up with one, then the problem is not solved.

The Fathers explicitly said that we cannot know exactly what is meant by begetting or proceeding, but that they are certainly distinct from each other. To look at the terminology though, one appears to be a matter of generation and the other a matter of emission.
The Fathers also taught that the Holy Spirit also comes from the Son.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2010, 07:38:17 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.
Heresy always further discusses a particular point.
So does dogma.
No, it clarifies a particular point.  Filioque clarifies nothing, and muddles much.
Actually the lack of the Filioque confuses the Son and the Holy Spirit.
We Orthodox lack confusion over the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I don't think that you guys think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Same person but the I do believe that logical conclusion of the explicit denial of the filiqoque is a confusion of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Since we've been explicitly denying the filioque for a very long time (even if you and I would disagree on how long) how do you think we confuse the Son and the Holy Spirit?
The main thing that distinguishes the perons of Trinity is their relations to one another. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit because he is the source, no person comes from him. The Son is distinguished from the Father by in that his source is the Father. The Holy Spirit is distinguised from the Father in the same way as the Son. The problem here is that this leaves no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Son. But the filioque solves this problem The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in that the Son participates with the Father in the Spirits Spiration.
The Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.  Problem solved.

With the filioque, the spirit is also begotten: how else could the Son participate in the Spirit's spiration?
What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding? If you can't come up with one, then the problem is not solved.

The Fathers explicitly said that we cannot know exactly what is meant by begetting or proceeding, but that they are certainly distinct from each other. To look at the terminology though, one appears to be a matter of generation and the other a matter of emission.
What is the difference between generation and emission?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2010, 08:20:33 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.

Are you joking me? Saying that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son and not just from the Father is not adding something to the substance of the Creed?
No, I don't joke about such things. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is a Patristic teaching.

That's not what we were discussing. We were discussing the substance of the Nicene Creed, which is much more particular that what may or may not be "Patristic teaching".
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 #76 on: January 20, 2010, 08:22:00 PM »


The Fathers also taught that the Holy Spirit also comes from the Son.

What do you mean by "comes 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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2010, 08:23:42 PM »


The Fathers also taught that the Holy Spirit also comes from the Son.

What do you mean by "comes from"?
That the Son, is in some sense (albeit a secondary sense) a source of the Holy Spirit.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2010, 08:24:15 PM »


What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding?


What is the difference between generation and emission?

We were instructed to affirm the difference but not to speculate as to its nature.
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 #79 on: January 20, 2010, 08:24:36 PM »


The Fathers also taught that the Holy Spirit also comes from the Son.

What do you mean by "comes from"?
That the Son, is in some sense (albeit a secondary sense) a source of the Holy Spirit.

A source of His being or simply His coming and going?
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2010, 08:24:56 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.

Are you joking me? Saying that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son and not just from the Father is not adding something to the substance of the Creed?
No, I don't joke about such things. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is a Patristic teaching.

That's not what we were discussing. We were discussing the substance of the Nicene Creed, which is much more particular that what may or may not be "Patristic teaching".
I have always seen the Creed as an outline of the faith. We may not alter that faith but the creed can have words added to emphasize particular points.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2010, 08:25:10 PM »

A source of His being or simply His coming and going?
Being
« Last Edit: January 20, 2010, 08:25:31 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2010, 08:27:42 PM »


What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding?


What is the difference between generation and emission?

We were instructed to affirm the difference but not to speculate as to its nature.
And other Fathers say that the Spirit's procession is from the Father, through the Son.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2010, 08:55:36 PM »


Could you tell me why the Filioque makes it clear to you.

Because it seems clear to me that the clause was a canonical violation and that the theology behind it quickly developed into a heterodox conception of the Trinity.
I just don't see a cannonical violation. I don't thin that the Filioque adds or subtracts anything from the Nicene faith but only further discusses a particular point.

Are you joking me? Saying that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son and not just from the Father is not adding something to the substance of the Creed?
No, I don't joke about such things. The idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is a Patristic teaching.

That's not what we were discussing. We were discussing the substance of the Nicene Creed, which is much more particular that what may or may not be "Patristic teaching".
I have always seen the Creed as an outline of the faith. We may not alter that faith but the creed can have words added to emphasize particular points.

It is an outline of the faith. But it is, of course, not the extent of it. That's the difference I am point out. The Fathers may or may not have taught what you are saying on the procession (I highly doubt you could establish such a consensus), but the Creed certainly does not, saying only "who proceeds from the Father".

And generally, no, it was not permissible to add substance to the Creed. Bringing up the supposed procession of the Spirit from the Son is clearly adding substance which, even if it is from the Fathers, I don't think has been regarded as permissible.
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 #84 on: January 20, 2010, 08:57:48 PM »

A source of His being or simply His coming and going?
Being

I totally don't buy that. Where do you see the Fathers teaching that the Son is at all a source of the Holy Spirit's being?
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 #85 on: January 20, 2010, 08:59:51 PM »


What is the difference between being begotten and proceeding?


What is the difference between generation and emission?

We were instructed to affirm the difference but not to speculate as to its nature.
And other Fathers say that the Spirit's procession is from the Father, through the Son.

Of course if the Holy Spirit issues forth from the Father, He is going to go forth through the Son. The doctrine of perichoresis establishes it as impossible for this not to happen. But this doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit issues forth also from the Son as a source.
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
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 #86 on: January 20, 2010, 09:28:08 PM »

Of course if the Holy Spirit issues forth from the Father, He is going to go forth through the Son. The doctrine of perichoresis establishes it as impossible for this not to happen. But this doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit issues forth also from the Son as a source.

'through' is a very good choice but we need not remind you that Greek Fathers used 'from' as a descriptor. The reality is we should be talking about this with Greek and Latin...
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: 638


militantsparrow
« Reply #87 on: January 20, 2010, 09:31:04 PM »

Militantsparrow, may I assume that though you have identified yourself as Catholic, you have, in fact, intellectually stepped away from the Catholic Church and are investigating the respective claims of Catholicism and Orthodoxy with the intention of committing yourself to whichever Church is able to provide the most rationally compelling arguments and evidence?

Not exactly. It's more that I am intellectually a Catholic, but drawn to the Orthodox Church in a way that is not necessarily intellectual. I struggle to explain it. I want to say I am emotionally drawn to the Orthodox Church, but it may be that I am spiritually drawn to it. My hope is to try to eliminate the intellect as an obstacle or fortify it as a rock.

Quote
Neither committed Catholics nor committed Orthodox read history in a "neutral" fashion.  For both the reading of history is informed by belief and dogma.

I agree. There is no doubt about it, but there is an objective truth out there somewhere.

Quote
Newman came to believe in the claims of the Catholic Church because he became convinced that the notes of apostolicity, catholicity, unity, and sanctity were fully embodied in the Catholic Church.

He probably had a better Church to look at then. Clown masses, drums and guitars for the Lamb of God, the Creed in three part harmony, and so on. Most Catholic Churches I go to look more Protestant then anything else. Those that embrace tradition become Rad Trads who lack the warmth of Eastern Orthodox.

Quote
Newman was insistent that the infallibility of the Pope is not the basis of the Catholic religion. Catholic apologists need to learn from Newman on this point.

Then there is no need for me to look any further. Because if the Pope's infallibility is not necessary, the Orthodox Church looks far more like the Church in Acts to me than does the Catholic Church. The only reason I am still Catholic is that on an intellectual level, I believe Papal supremacy is real and necessary.

Quote
History as presented by apologists is anything but neutral.

Yes I agree, but I do know which way their bias leans. I can then see if their arguments hold up to their own claims and etc.

Quote
Which Church would St Ambrose or St Athanasius recognize as the Church if he were to walk into a Catholic or Orthodox parish today?  In which Church are the notes of the Church most fully embodied and lived?

It could be a "grass is always greener" sort of thing, but I would say they would not recognize the Catholic Church today.

I do appreciate your response and advice. Thank you very much.
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: 638


militantsparrow
« Reply #88 on: January 20, 2010, 09:34:17 PM »

The Son and the Spirit are distinguished from each other because of their relationship to the Father being different. One is begotten and one is proceeding. Easy enough.

I do agree with you. It seems that the Creed distinguished well enough between the three Persons of the Trinity before the filioque was added. But shouldn't we also be addressing whether the Pope had the authority to insert it? And only after being forced to by a layperson?
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: 638


militantsparrow
« Reply #89 on: January 20, 2010, 09:38:09 PM »

And other Fathers say that the Spirit's procession is from the Father, through the Son.

This seems supported by scripture as well.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
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 0.22 seconds with 72 queries.