OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 06:54:13 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 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Orthodox and Catholics Worship the Same Trinity?  (Read 19817 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« on: May 10, 2010, 08:45:17 PM »

I think I'd rather have a thread of RC's being joyful in their faith than yet another article in some newspaper/blog that uses the much-publicized issues within the various Churches to try and convince people that religion is ridiculous.  We may have our issues, and may believe that the other (RC to OC, and vice-versa) is not the Body of Christ, but at least we're both trying in one way or another to glorify the One God in Three Persons.


Fr.Bless
A orthodox poster on catholic answers said  there, that the catholics worship a different god trinity, Than the Orthodox ,,due to the change the made in the Nicene creed..I have to agree with that poster...We don't worship the same Holy Trinty as they....
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 892


Most Holy Theotokos Save Us!


« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2010, 08:50:11 PM »

I think I'd rather have a thread of RC's being joyful in their faith than yet another article in some newspaper/blog that uses the much-publicized issues within the various Churches to try and convince people that religion is ridiculous.  We may have our issues, and may believe that the other (RC to OC, and vice-versa) is not the Body of Christ, but at least we're both trying in one way or another to glorify the One God in Three Persons.


Fr.Bless
A orthodox poster on catholic answers said  there, that the catholics worship a different god trinity, Than the Orthodox ,,due to the change the made in the Nicene creed..I have to agree with that poster...We don't worship the same Holy Trinty as they....
Christ is Risen!!!

Stashko as someone who comes from the Catholic church I would have to say we worship the same Holy Trinity.
Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #2 on: May 10, 2010, 08:52:39 PM »

I think I'd rather have a thread of RC's being joyful in their faith than yet another article in some newspaper/blog that uses the much-publicized issues within the various Churches to try and convince people that religion is ridiculous.  We may have our issues, and may believe that the other (RC to OC, and vice-versa) is not the Body of Christ, but at least we're both trying in one way or another to glorify the One God in Three Persons.


Fr.Bless
A orthodox poster on catholic answers said  there, that the catholics worship a different god trinity, Than the Orthodox ,,due to the change the made in the Nicene creed..I have to agree with that poster...We don't worship the same Holy Trinty as they....
Christ is Risen!!!

Stashko as someone who comes from the Catholic church I would have to say we worship the same Holy Trinity.

Truly He is Risen!

As I said, we try.  From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity.  So his point can be supported.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 10, 2010, 08:53:56 PM »

I think I'd rather have a thread of RC's being joyful in their faith than yet another article in some newspaper/blog that uses the much-publicized issues within the various Churches to try and convince people that religion is ridiculous.  We may have our issues, and may believe that the other (RC to OC, and vice-versa) is not the Body of Christ, but at least we're both trying in one way or another to glorify the One God in Three Persons.


Fr.Bless
A orthodox poster on catholic answers said  there, that the catholics worship a different god trinity, Than the Orthodox ,,due to the change the made in the Nicene creed..I have to agree with that poster...We don't worship the same Holy Trinty as they....

Hmmm. That's partially true and partially not. They do believe in the same personalities that the world has come to know through historic Christianity. It is their understanding of the theological natures of those personalities that is warped and different because of the dual origination of the Holy Spirit.
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 #4 on: May 10, 2010, 08:55:47 PM »

I think I'd rather have a thread of RC's being joyful in their faith than yet another article in some newspaper/blog that uses the much-publicized issues within the various Churches to try and convince people that religion is ridiculous.  We may have our issues, and may believe that the other (RC to OC, and vice-versa) is not the Body of Christ, but at least we're both trying in one way or another to glorify the One God in Three Persons.


Fr.Bless
A orthodox poster on catholic answers said  there, that the catholics worship a different god trinity, Than the Orthodox ,,due to the change the made in the Nicene creed..I have to agree with that poster...We don't worship the same Holy Trinty as they....
Christ is Risen!!!

Stashko as someone who comes from the Catholic church I would have to say we worship the same Holy Trinity.

Truly He is Risen!

As I said, we try.  From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity.  So his point can be supported.

What? You're saying that you think that the filioque clause is problematic for Trinitarian theology even if it is understood to only mean the non-ontological emission of the Holy Spirit that is both from the Father and the Son?
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
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #5 on: May 10, 2010, 10:32:40 PM »

Truly He is Risen!

As I said, we try.  From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity.  So his point can be supported.

What? You're saying that you think that the filioque clause is problematic for Trinitarian theology even if it is understood to only mean the non-ontological emission of the Holy Spirit that is both from the Father and the Son?

What is your objection to my statement?  Make a statement that can be responded to, rather than a vague question that can be answered with the quote you seem to object to.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 10, 2010, 10:34:39 PM »

Truly He is Risen!

As I said, we try.  From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity.  So his point can be supported.

What? You're saying that you think that the filioque clause is problematic for Trinitarian theology even if it is understood to only mean the non-ontological emission of the Holy Spirit that is both from the Father and the Son?

What is your objection to my statement?  Make a statement that can be responded to, rather than a vague question that can be answered with the quote you seem to object to.

Why can't you just answer the question?
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2010, 10:56:18 PM »

  We may have our issues, and may believe that the other (RC to OC, and vice-versa) is not the Body of Christ, but at least we're both trying in one way or another to glorify the One God in Three Persons.
Thank you Father George. It would be nice if the two Churches could somehow cooperate on issues of mutual agreement, (in spite of the very serious differences which still have to be ironed out).
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #8 on: May 11, 2010, 07:17:03 AM »

What is your objection to my statement?  Make a statement that can be responded to, rather than a vague question that can be answered with the quote you seem to object to.
Why can't you just answer the question?

You obviously did not get my point, so I'll re-make it via example:

What? You're saying that you think that the filioque clause is problematic for Trinitarian theology even if it is understood to only mean the non-ontological emission of the Holy Spirit that is both from the Father and the Son?

From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity. 

In short - make your point, stop dancing around your real question.  No intelligent conversation is had when one asks a question that can easily be answered with a previously made statement that the question itself seemingly objects to!  Present your argument, so I can truly and in a meaningful way answer your question.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 11, 2010, 10:47:39 AM »

What is your objection to my statement?  Make a statement that can be responded to, rather than a vague question that can be answered with the quote you seem to object to.
Why can't you just answer the question?

You obviously did not get my point, so I'll re-make it via example:

What? You're saying that you think that the filioque clause is problematic for Trinitarian theology even if it is understood to only mean the non-ontological emission of the Holy Spirit that is both from the Father and the Son?

From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity. 

In short - make your point, stop dancing around your real question.  No intelligent conversation is had when one asks a question that can easily be answered with a previously made statement that the question itself seemingly objects to!  Present your argument, so I can truly and in a meaningful way answer your question.

Why would you think that the idea of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity aside from with respect to the origination of the Holy Spirit?
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 11, 2010, 10:59:37 AM »

Can't you just be happy and clap your hands as I suggested earlier?

I think we have a thread on church architecture where your pics would be a good addition.

Try to be tolerant

So what are we discussing? The name of this section is "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion.  Roll Eyes

I have brought a subject, Catholicism from a happy catholic, Though you seem to be outplaced when invited to see what I do see in The Church. you seem more ready to disqualify any subject that may honor Catholicism, and though I haven´t yet say anything against "orthodoxy", I haven't given you any motive for you to be upset and yet that is what it seems to bother you.

I am not upset or bothered - in fact, I really like your beautiful pictures, and I admire your love for your Church. Yet, it looks like you and I have different ideas about what "discussion" is...

What Would you like tu discuss

Well, there are hundreds of topics. For example: why Filioque (esp. how could it be adopted by a local council in Toledo without approval of the Eastern jurisdictions, and in the face of the already existing consensus that there should be no additions to the Creed). Or what exactly do the words "vicar of Christ" or "Pontificus Maximus" mean.
Approval of the Eastern jurisdictions? Who needs it?! LOL. The Easts spent so much time in heresy during the time of the Fathers that the approval of the East is not necessarily a badge of honor.

But that's a weak argument. Of course the Church needs approval of ALL her jurisdictions in order to go ahead with something as important as changing the Creed. The Church has a counciliar nature, just like the Trinity! As for heresies, well, you have a point that there were monumental heresies originiating in the East - but there were also hierarchs in the West who were happy to join them. Pope Honorius for one...
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 10:59:58 AM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2010, 11:36:34 AM »

Why would you think that the idea of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity aside from with respect to the origination of the Holy Spirit?

I think the addition to the Creed of the filioque is problematic because it requires far too much explanation to encapsulate the point from the RC POV.  The addition of the filioque, in order to be understood in a potentially non-heretical manner, would require an entire paragraph of addition to the Creed, IMO. I actually think it is an insult to the fathers of the first two ecumenical councils, who spend considerable time hashing out the minutae of the language of the creed related to the faith that was held by all true Christians since Christ, to add a word which has admittedly and plainly dual and potentially conflicting interpretations and which is the source of such division in the Church.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
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: 37,831



« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2010, 12:10:07 PM »

Can't you just be happy and clap your hands as I suggested earlier?

I think we have a thread on church architecture where your pics would be a good addition.

Try to be tolerant

So what are we discussing? The name of this section is "Orthodox-Catholic Discussion.  Roll Eyes

I have brought a subject, Catholicism from a happy catholic, Though you seem to be outplaced when invited to see what I do see in The Church. you seem more ready to disqualify any subject that may honor Catholicism, and though I haven´t yet say anything against "orthodoxy", I haven't given you any motive for you to be upset and yet that is what it seems to bother you.

I am not upset or bothered - in fact, I really like your beautiful pictures, and I admire your love for your Church. Yet, it looks like you and I have different ideas about what "discussion" is...

What Would you like tu discuss

Well, there are hundreds of topics. For example: why Filioque (esp. how could it be adopted by a local council in Toledo without approval of the Eastern jurisdictions, and in the face of the already existing consensus that there should be no additions to the Creed). Or what exactly do the words "vicar of Christ" or "Pontificus Maximus" mean.
Approval of the Eastern jurisdictions? Who needs it?! LOL. The Easts spent so much time in heresy during the time of the Fathers that the approval of the East is not necessarily a badge of honor.

But that's a weak argument. Of course the Church needs approval of ALL her jurisdictions in order to go ahead with something as important as changing the Creed. The Church has a counciliar nature, just like the Trinity! As for heresies, well, you have a point that there were monumental heresies originiating in the East - but there were also hierarchs in the West who were happy to join them. Pope Honorius for one...
One, Holy, Catholid and Apostolic Church is conciliar, but the church that inserted the filioque only has concils as rubber stamps for its supreme pontiff.

Of course accusation that the East was full of heresy ignores that it was the most Christianized area until well after the schism.
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
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2010, 06:37:07 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2010, 07:21:41 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
That's interesting. As Catholics we pray to God, the Supreme Being  who made all things, Our Father  who art in heaven. Now you are telling me that in the Holy Orthodox Church you do not pray to the Supreme Being who made all things, you do not pray to Our Father who art in heaven, but to someone different?
And what about Mary, the Holy Theotokos and Mother of God.  As Catholics many of us pray to Mary, the Mother of God and the Holy Theotokos every day? Do you pray to a different person or do you pray to the same Holy Mary, Mother of God as Catholics?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2010, 02:02:57 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
Nope. Same God.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2010, 02:20:46 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
Nope. Same God.
That’s what I think, That Orthodox pray to the same God as do Catholics. However, it appears from this that Orthodox do not agree with this. I know that as a Catholic I pray to the Supreme Being who made all things,
The question now is whether or not Orthodox pray to the same Mary, the Mother of God as do Catholics? As Catholics we pray to Holy Mary Mother of God. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2010, 02:23:21 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
Nope. Same God.
That’s what I think, That Orthodox pray to the same God as do Catholics. However, it appears from this that Orthodox do not agree with this. I know that as a Catholic I pray to the Supreme Being who made all things,
The question now is whether or not Orthodox pray to the same Mary, the Mother of God as do Catholics? As Catholics we pray to Holy Mary Mother of God. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

I don't think that all Orthodox think that we pray to different gods.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2010, 02:30:38 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
Nope. Same God.
That’s what I think, That Orthodox pray to the same God as do Catholics. However, it appears from this that Orthodox do not agree with this. I know that as a Catholic I pray to the Supreme Being who made all things,
The question now is whether or not Orthodox pray to the same Mary, the Mother of God as do Catholics? As Catholics we pray to Holy Mary Mother of God. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

I don't think that all Orthodox think that we pray to different gods.
No, only stashko does (and maybe a few others like him).
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2010, 02:35:49 PM »

Why would you think that the idea of the dual procession of the Holy Spirit is problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity aside from with respect to the origination of the Holy Spirit?

I think the addition to the Creed of the filioque is problematic because it requires far too much explanation to encapsulate the point from the RC POV.  The addition of the filioque, in order to be understood in a potentially non-heretical manner, would require an entire paragraph of addition to the Creed, IMO. I actually think it is an insult to the fathers of the first two ecumenical councils, who spend considerable time hashing out the minutae of the language of the creed related to the faith that was held by all true Christians since Christ, to add a word which has admittedly and plainly dual and potentially conflicting interpretations and which is the source of such division in the Church.

It wouldn't be all that difficult to come to an understanding that the filioque is only an indication that the Holy Spirit is emitted and sent from both the Father and the Son, if that was what the Latins believed (which I don't think it is). How would it be problematic for the doctrine of the Trinity if that was the case?
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 #20 on: May 18, 2010, 02:37:35 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...

Stashko, what you do you have to say about this post?:

I think I'd rather have a thread of RC's being joyful in their faith than yet another article in some newspaper/blog that uses the much-publicized issues within the various Churches to try and convince people that religion is ridiculous.  We may have our issues, and may believe that the other (RC to OC, and vice-versa) is not the Body of Christ, but at least we're both trying in one way or another to glorify the One God in Three Persons.


Fr.Bless
A orthodox poster on catholic answers said  there, that the catholics worship a different god trinity, Than the Orthodox ,,due to the change the made in the Nicene creed..I have to agree with that poster...We don't worship the same Holy Trinty as they....

Hmmm. That's partially true and partially not. They do believe in the same personalities that the world has come to know through historic Christianity. It is their understanding of the theological natures of those personalities that is warped and different because of the dual origination of the Holy Spirit.
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 #21 on: May 18, 2010, 02:40:01 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
That's interesting. As Catholics we pray to God, the Supreme Being  who made all things, Our Father  who art in heaven. Now you are telling me that in the Holy Orthodox Church you do not pray to the Supreme Being who made all things, you do not pray to Our Father who art in heaven, but to someone different?
And what about Mary, the Holy Theotokos and Mother of God.  As Catholics many of us pray to Mary, the Mother of God and the Holy Theotokos every day? Do you pray to a different person or do you pray to the same Holy Mary, Mother of God as Catholics?

We would say that we pray to God the Father who is the sole unoriginated source of being in the Godhead and constitutes its singular principle. You, on the other hand, have made the Godhead itself the source of being and have thus produced a rather distinct doctrine of the Trinity that could even call into question the nature of the Father Himself.
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: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2010, 02:45:12 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
That's interesting. As Catholics we pray to God, the Supreme Being  who made all things, Our Father  who art in heaven. Now you are telling me that in the Holy Orthodox Church you do not pray to the Supreme Being who made all things, you do not pray to Our Father who art in heaven, but to someone different?
And what about Mary, the Holy Theotokos and Mother of God.  As Catholics many of us pray to Mary, the Mother of God and the Holy Theotokos every day? Do you pray to a different person or do you pray to the same Holy Mary, Mother of God as Catholics?

We would say that we pray to God the Father who is the sole unoriginated source of being in the Godhead and constitutes its singular principle. You, on the other hand, have made the Godhead itself the source of being and have thus produced a rather distinct doctrine of the Trinity that could even call into question the nature of the Father Himself.
asenine
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2010, 02:53:01 PM »

He changed God by Aesteticism.

Do you think that we Orthodox believe in a different God than you Catholics?
Same God.

No! No! No! not at all ,,Not the same..Your trinity is not our Holy Trinity..You Changes to another one ,Holy Orthodoxy doesn't recognize it...
That's interesting. As Catholics we pray to God, the Supreme Being  who made all things, Our Father  who art in heaven. Now you are telling me that in the Holy Orthodox Church you do not pray to the Supreme Being who made all things, you do not pray to Our Father who art in heaven, but to someone different?
And what about Mary, the Holy Theotokos and Mother of God.  As Catholics many of us pray to Mary, the Mother of God and the Holy Theotokos every day? Do you pray to a different person or do you pray to the same Holy Mary, Mother of God as Catholics?

We would say that we pray to God the Father who is the sole unoriginated source of being in the Godhead and constitutes its singular principle. You, on the other hand, have made the Godhead itself the source of being and have thus produced a rather distinct doctrine of the Trinity that could even call into question the nature of the Father Himself.
asenine
How is this asinine?  He's not saying you worship another Trinity.  He's merely acknowledging that, even though we may indeed worship the same Trinity, the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox understandings of the Trinity are sufficiently different to warrant criticism.  I happen to agree with him.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 02:54:55 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2010, 02:56:31 PM »

I'm saying that you worship the same personalities but do not have a proper understanding of their 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
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2010, 02:57:08 PM »

  For example the catholic jesus from there trinity ,pops up on occasion in talking apparitions ,like in the sacred heart, divine mercy,giving strange or other way's  of salvation ,Unkown to the Holy Fathers Faith Once delivered..So How Can it Be The same..... Grin
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:00:23 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,038



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2010, 02:58:29 PM »


That's interesting. As Catholics we pray to God, the Supreme Being  who made all things, Our Father  who art in heaven. Now you are telling me that in the Holy Orthodox Church you do not pray to the Supreme Being who made all things, you do not pray to Our Father who art in heaven, but to someone different?
And what about Mary, the Holy Theotokos and Mother of God.  As Catholics many of us pray to Mary, the Mother of God and the Holy Theotokos every day? Do you pray to a different person or do you pray to the same Holy Mary, Mother of God as Catholics?


I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

As for the Holy Trinity, isn't the correct understanding of the relation between all Three important?

For example, if you have a family of three individuals....the entire family "structure" depends on their relation to one another.  They could be both parents and a child, 3 siblings, a grandparent, parent and grandchild, cousins, etc.

Isn't the correct understanding of their relationship to one another a major factor in our relationship and understanding of them?

I explain the Holy Trinity in simple words to my little students.

God the Father is the candle.  Christ is the Light of the world, and thereby the flame.  God the Holy Spirit works invisibly and is felt not seen, therefore, He is the heat emitted by the candle. Yet, both flame and heat are an integral part of the candle.  The candle is the source of both.




« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 02:58:48 PM by LizaSymonenko » Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,040



« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2010, 02:59:46 PM »

asenine

No, just your spelling is.

Saying that the addition of the filioque or its absence from the creed amounts to confessing the same theology is asinine.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2010, 03:06:27 PM »

The Catholic Mary is also Strange, Appearing in Apparitions pointing to herself giving odd messages.
Even the catholic Mary isn't the same as the Orthodox Blessed Theotokos...
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2010, 03:07:31 PM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Whew! I thought I was the only one who was offended. I have also noticed that many RC's also refer to the Apostles as Peter, John, Paul, etc---instead of St Peter, St John, St Paul....... Huh
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:08:19 PM by Mickey » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2010, 03:10:14 PM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Whew! I thought I was the only one who was offended. I have also noticed that many RC's also refer to the Apostles as Peter, John, Paul, etc---instead of St Peter, St John, St Paul....... Huh
Great! Roll Eyes  Now you have me waiting to hear strands of that song, "Puff the Magic Dragon". Tongue
Logged
Altar Server
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian(as of 12/18/10)
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 892


Most Holy Theotokos Save Us!


« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2010, 03:12:30 PM »

Quote
As I said, we try.  From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity.  So his point can be supported

Father Bless!

I agree that the filioque muddles things alot but does that have to mean we worship diffrent Gods? from what I understand Rome understands the filioque as meaning that the Holy Sprit proceeds from the Father through the Son...which as far as I know is orthodox(am I right there?)
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:15:20 PM by Altar Server » Logged

All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2010, 03:32:17 PM »

I'm saying that you worship the same personalities but do not have a proper understanding of their nature.
Well, that's different from what I understood above.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #33 on: May 18, 2010, 03:34:53 PM »

The Catholic Mary is also Strange, Appearing in Apparitions pointing to herself giving odd messages.
Even the catholic Mary isn't the same as the Orthodox Blessed Theotokos...

So you do not pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary? Holy Mary,  Mother of God. Blessed art thou amongst women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus?
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,040



« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2010, 03:38:52 PM »


Father Bless!

I agree that the filioque muddles things alot but does that have to mean we worship diffrent Gods? from what I understand Rome understands the filioque as meaning that the Holy Sprit proceeds from the Father through the Son...which as far as I know is orthodox(am I right there?)

Not necessarily and even RC church history would suggest that the two formulae are the same.  At a local synod in the western church in the 11th century, per Filium, "through the Son" was vehemently rejected.  I'll have to get my copy of Runciman's Eastern Schism out to check the particulars.  But, logically, "though" and "from" are not one and the same thing.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2010, 03:39:13 PM »

Whew! I thought I was the only one who was offended. I have also noticed that many RC's also refer to the Apostles as Peter, John, Paul, etc---instead of St Peter, St John, St Paul....... Huh

Egalitarianism prevails.

I agree with the general sentiment, that we worship the same personalities, but that the relationship between them has been distorted in the Roman Catholic Church, and subsequently in the Magisterial Reformation.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:41:12 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2010, 03:49:57 PM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

That actually makes sense to me. She is so important in comparison to the others that if one just says "Mary", it should be clear that one is referring to the birth-giver of the Logos.
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 #37 on: May 18, 2010, 03:51:28 PM »

Quote
As I said, we try.  From our POV, the addition to the Creed, even if intended to have a different effect, is problematic viz-a-viz the relationship of members of the Trinity.  So his point can be supported

Father Bless!

I agree that the filioque muddles things alot but does that have to mean we worship diffrent Gods? from what I understand Rome understands the filioque as meaning that the Holy Sprit proceeds from the Father through the Son...which as far as I know is orthodox(am I right there?)

How is that consistent with "the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from one principle"?
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 #38 on: May 18, 2010, 03:52:16 PM »

I'm saying that you worship the same personalities but do not have a proper understanding of their nature.
Well, that's different from what I understood above.

That's not what stashko appears to be saying but that is what I have been saying all along.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 03:52:36 PM by deusveritasest » 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 #39 on: May 18, 2010, 03:54:14 PM »

But, logically, "though" and "from" are not one and the same thing.

With respect to ontological origin, I agree that "through" and "from" cannot be the same.
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
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2010, 03:54:21 PM »

Now you have me waiting to hear strands of that song, "Puff the Magic Dragon".

Those fabulous sixties!  Tongue
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2010, 05:38:19 PM »

I'm saying that you worship the same personalities but do not have a proper understanding of their nature.
Ok, that's fair. Perhaps I overreacted.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2010, 05:40:07 PM »

asenine

No, just your spelling is.

Saying that the addition of the filioque or its absence from the creed amounts to confessing the same theology is asinine.
You mean the patristic teaching of the filioque? Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: 37,831



« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2010, 05:47:07 PM »

asenine

No, just your spelling is.

Saying that the addition of the filioque or its absence from the creed amounts to confessing the same theology is asinine.
You mean the patristic teaching of the filioque?

That it is heresy, yes.

Quote
Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.
Is that what St. Augustine said?
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
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2010, 05:49:50 PM »

Stashko's point, though, if dismissed, would lead to the logical conclusion that the Orthodox and the Muslims both worship God the Father, with one community having the fullest understanding of God than the other.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2010, 06:00:59 PM »

Stashko's point, though, if dismissed, would lead to the logical conclusion that the Orthodox and the Muslims both worship God the Father, with one community having the fullest understanding of God than the other.

Two points:

1. Yes, we must admit that if one group does not understand the nature of the persons of the Trinity and another does that the first group's worship is deficient in comparison. That must I will admit.

2. The worship of a Muslim can obviously be recognized as deficient to a much greater degree than the (Old) Romans. Yes, they have encountered a historical personality through the pre-Advent Jews that they worship. However, the Romans recognize the a triad of personalities in the Godhead whereas the Muslims do not. Also, the Romans recognize the Father as father in a sense that the Muslims certain do not.

Thus, I think we can still conclude that Muslims do not worship the Father in the same sense that the orthodox do. I think John 4:19-24 also supports the notion of there being deficient forms of worship.
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 #46 on: May 18, 2010, 06:02:52 PM »

asenine

No, just your spelling is.

Saying that the addition of the filioque or its absence from the creed amounts to confessing the same theology is asinine.
You mean the patristic teaching of the filioque? Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.

Some form of filioquism could be supported by some of the Eastern Fathers, but never the ontological form that your church developed.
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
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2010, 06:04:15 PM »

Stashko's point, though, if dismissed, would lead to the logical conclusion that the Orthodox and the Muslims both worship God the Father, with one community having the fullest understanding of God than the other.

Two points:

1. Yes, we must admit that if one group does not understand the nature of the persons of the Trinity and another does that the first group's worship is deficient in comparison. That must I will admit.

2. The worship of a Muslim can obviously be recognized as deficient to a much greater degree than the (Old) Romans. Yes, they have encountered a historical personality through the pre-Advent Jews that they worship. However, the Romans recognize the a triad of personalities in the Godhead whereas the Muslims do not. Also, the Romans recognize the Father as father in a sense that the Muslims certain do not.

Thus, I think we can still conclude that Muslims do not worship the Father in the same sense that the orthodox do. I think John 4:19-24 also supports the notion of there being deficient forms of worship.
So you're saying that the Muslims worship the Father, but deficiently?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2010, 06:07:44 PM »

Stashko's point, though, if dismissed, would lead to the logical conclusion that the Orthodox and the Muslims both worship God the Father, with one community having the fullest understanding of God than the other.

Lex orandi lex credendi. If the nature of our understanding of God is different, so will the nature of our worship be different.
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 #49 on: May 18, 2010, 06:10:59 PM »

Stashko's point, though, if dismissed, would lead to the logical conclusion that the Orthodox and the Muslims both worship God the Father, with one community having the fullest understanding of God than the other.

Two points:

1. Yes, we must admit that if one group does not understand the nature of the persons of the Trinity and another does that the first group's worship is deficient in comparison. That must I will admit.

2. The worship of a Muslim can obviously be recognized as deficient to a much greater degree than the (Old) Romans. Yes, they have encountered a historical personality through the pre-Advent Jews that they worship. However, the Romans recognize the a triad of personalities in the Godhead whereas the Muslims do not. Also, the Romans recognize the Father as father in a sense that the Muslims certain do not.

Thus, I think we can still conclude that Muslims do not worship the Father in the same sense that the orthodox do. I think John 4:19-24 also supports the notion of there being deficient forms of worship.
So you're saying that the Muslims worship the Father, but deficiently?

I think to say that they "worship the Father" is to give them too much credit. If they do not sufficiently identify and distinguish the Father as we understand Him to be the Father, then how would it be appropriate to say that they worship Him? We could say that they "worship the God of Abraham", but to go further to identify that with one of the persons of the Trinity would be to inappropriately Christianize them.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 06:11:14 PM by deusveritasest » 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: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2010, 06:27:51 PM »

asenine

No, just your spelling is.

Saying that the addition of the filioque or its absence from the creed amounts to confessing the same theology is asinine.
You mean the patristic teaching of the filioque?

That it is heresy, yes.

Quote
Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.

Is that what St. Augustine said?
Sure whatever. This has been debated here endlessly and your side has failed to sufficiently defent its position.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2010, 07:25:08 PM »

Stashko's point, though, if dismissed, would lead to the logical conclusion that the Orthodox and the Muslims both worship God the Father, with one community having the fullest understanding of God than the other.

So the question ends up being about how much distortion can take place before the Deity becomes entirely different on a conceptual level? Is it a question of emphasis/emphases? Do Evangelicals that overemphasizes the cuddly nature of God as a super-friend make Him a different God?
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #52 on: May 18, 2010, 07:26:23 PM »

Sure whatever. This has been debated here endlessly and your side has failed to sufficiently defent its position.

No, I remember that you and the other Roman Catholics lost the debate and were proven completely wrong. It actually happened twice.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #53 on: May 18, 2010, 07:28:58 PM »

Sure whatever. This has been debated here endlessly and your side has failed to sufficiently defent its position.

No, I remember that you and the other Roman Catholics lost the debate and were proven completely wrong. It actually happened twice.
You must not have been paying attention. Perhaps that's why defected.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 18, 2010, 07:46:30 PM »

The "'we won', 'no we won'" routine is utterly inane.
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
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,040



« Reply #55 on: May 18, 2010, 07:47:20 PM »

Sure whatever. This has been debated here endlessly and your side has failed to sufficiently defent its position.

Perhaps to your mind, it hasn't, but we place the surety of our faith in Christ's Church which taught definitively that the Filioque is heresy.  What more defense is needed?

BTW, can we use spell checker?  First it was "asenine" and now "defent."  
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #56 on: May 18, 2010, 08:43:49 PM »

Sure whatever. This has been debated here endlessly and your side has failed to sufficiently defent its position.

No, I remember that you and the other Roman Catholics lost the debate and were proven completely wrong. It actually happened twice.
I recall that there was some question about St. Augustine and what he believed on the filioque. Was this ever resolved?
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #57 on: May 18, 2010, 09:59:31 PM »

The "'we won', 'no we won'" routine is utterly inane.

Actually, I was simply trying to point out how easy it is to make a statement without qualifying it. Those types of posts are the most frustrating to deal with, because they require all sorts of work to refute when they are utterly effortless on the part of the initial poster.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 10:00:24 PM by Alveus Lacuna » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,943


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #58 on: May 18, 2010, 11:06:23 PM »

Stashko's point, though, if dismissed, would lead to the logical conclusion that the Orthodox and the Muslims both worship God the Father, with one community having the fullest understanding of God than the other.

So the question ends up being about how much distortion can take place before the Deity becomes entirely different on a conceptual level? Is it a question of emphasis/emphases? Do Evangelicals that overemphasizes the cuddly nature of God as a super-friend make Him a different God?

It makes them have a false conception of God.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #59 on: May 19, 2010, 02:29:08 PM »

Sure whatever. This has been debated here endlessly and your side has failed to sufficiently defent its position.

Perhaps to your mind, it hasn't, but we place the surety of our faith in Christ's Church which taught definitively that the Filioque is heresy.  What more defense is needed?

BTW, can we use spell checker?  First it was "asenine" and now "defent."  
No, Christ's Church teaches that the Filioque is truth.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,891



« Reply #60 on: May 19, 2010, 03:30:34 PM »

No, Christ's Church teaches that the Filioque is truth.

No it doesn't. Nuh-uh. Wrong Church, dude. Better luck next time.

See how helpful those sort of responses are?  Wink
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #61 on: May 19, 2010, 03:35:03 PM »

No, Christ's Church teaches that the Filioque is truth.

No it doesn't. Nuh-uh. Wrong Church, dude. Better luck next time.

See how helpful those sort of responses are?  Wink

LOL!  laugh
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 19, 2010, 05:30:00 PM »

The "'we won', 'no we won'" routine is utterly inane.

Actually, I was simply trying to point out how easy it is to make a statement without qualifying it. Those types of posts are the most frustrating to deal with, because they require all sorts of work to refute when they are utterly effortless on the part of the initial poster.

Not if you just retort with the burden of proof.
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: May 19, 2010, 05:31:25 PM »

Sure whatever. This has been debated here endlessly and your side has failed to sufficiently defent its position.

Perhaps to your mind, it hasn't, but we place the surety of our faith in Christ's Church which taught definitively that the Filioque is heresy.  What more defense is needed?

BTW, can we use spell checker?  First it was "asenine" and now "defent."  
No, Christ's Church teaches that the Filioque is truth.

Oh brother.  Roll Eyes
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 19, 2010, 06:21:15 PM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/
Logged

HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #65 on: May 19, 2010, 07:18:10 PM »

IMHO, the filioque is wrong simply for the fact it wasn't included in the Original Creed.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Simple as that.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #66 on: May 19, 2010, 07:22:27 PM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/

The opinion of one man does not Orthodox consensus patrum make.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 19, 2010, 07:30:45 PM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/

The opinion of one man does not Orthodox consensus patrum make.

 laugh

But this one happens to be a particularly good opinion, and it is the actual foundation on which any eventual mutual understanding will have to be built, so even though you have offered the tried and true Orthodox response to all solid thinking coming from one brave Orthodox soul...it is still worth reading for truth's sake.

Mary
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #68 on: May 19, 2010, 07:33:42 PM »

(Emphasis mine:)

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:

Tsk, tsk.  An ad hominem of the widest scope.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 19, 2010, 07:38:05 PM »

(Emphasis mine:)

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:

Tsk, tsk.  An ad hominem of the widest scope.

But I did not mean it to be an ad hominem.  It was entirely unintentional.  I didn't try to insult anyone at all much less everyone at all.

Any more than any one here has ever meant or tried to insult me, as you said yourself in the other thread.

Did you read what is contained in the bekkos post/comments?  It's actually quite good and clear headed.

M.
Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #70 on: May 19, 2010, 08:15:19 PM »

Quote
Did you read what is contained in the bekkos post/comments?  It's actually quite good and clear headed.

It might fit what you want to believe. However, I'm afraid it is still contrary to established Orthodox doctrine and theology, no matter how you want to slice it.  Wink
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 08:17:05 PM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #71 on: May 19, 2010, 08:41:09 PM »

Quote
Did you read what is contained in the bekkos post/comments?  It's actually quite good and clear headed.

It might fit what you want to believe. However, I'm afraid it is still contrary to established Orthodox doctrine and theology, no matter how you want to slice it.  Wink

In order for that to have any more impact that a wink and a nod, you'd have to engage the text and show me how it is contrary to patristic teaching.

Mary
Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #72 on: May 19, 2010, 08:48:14 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 19, 2010, 08:58:09 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.


Writings of a Greek-speaking Syrian bishop named Severian of Gabala:

"Three and One, One and Three: for we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father, albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.

To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him [the Ubegotten], and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds† from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."
Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #74 on: May 19, 2010, 09:19:25 PM »

Quote
"Three and One, One and Three: for we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father, albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.

No problem with this, this is perfectly in keeping with Orthodox doctrine.

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him [the Unbegotten], and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essenceto the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."
,

Note the bolded section:
Quote
proceeds from their essence
. Wrong, according to Orthodox doctrine. God the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Quote
In order for that to have any more impact that a wink and a nod, you'd have to engage the text and show me how it is contrary to patristic teaching.

Isn't the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed sufficiently authoritative for you?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 09:26:51 PM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #75 on: May 19, 2010, 09:29:52 PM »

Quote
"Three and One, One and Three: for we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father, albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.

No problem with this, this is perfectly in keeping with Orthodox doctrine.

To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him [the Unbegotten], and to the Holy Spirit
Quote
who proceeds from their essence
, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

Note the bolded section:
Quote
proceeds from their essence
. Wrong, according to Orthodox doctrine. God the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Quote
In order for that to have any more impact that a wink and a nod, you'd have to engage the text and show me how it is contrary to patristic teaching.

Isn't the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed sufficiently authoritative for you?


Have you read Jarislav Pelikan's book on the Creeds?  Quite a good read.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Father is the Source of the Holy Spirit who spirates eternally from the Father and the Son as from one essential principle, since the Father and the Son are one in essence. 

The second part of that statement does not negate the Father as Source in any way.  It would be heresy to do so.

Apparently this Syrian Bishop understood that somewhat in advance of the filioque.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #76 on: May 19, 2010, 09:32:25 PM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/

The opinion of one man does not Orthodox consensus patrum make.

I don't think this opinion is even what elijahmaria is trying to make it to be. It seems more consistent with the EO-OO teaching to me.
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 #77 on: May 19, 2010, 09:45:46 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.


Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father (which the Son shares with Him) does not necessitate the Son having a direct role in the Spirit's procession. This statement is compatible with the idea that the Father is the one who issues forth the Spirit from His essence, an essence which He shares with the Son, though it is not by an action of the Son.
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 #78 on: May 19, 2010, 09:49:03 PM »

Note the bolded section:
Quote
proceeds from their essence
. Wrong, according to Orthodox doctrine. God the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but if this procession results in the Holy Spirit coming into existence with the essence of the Father as His own essence, doesn't the procession from the Father require some involvement of His essence?
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: May 19, 2010, 09:52:45 PM »

Quote
"Three and One, One and Three: for we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father, albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.

No problem with this, this is perfectly in keeping with Orthodox doctrine.

To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him [the Unbegotten], and to the Holy Spirit
Quote
who proceeds from their essence
, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

Note the bolded section:
Quote
proceeds from their essence
. Wrong, according to Orthodox doctrine. God the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Quote
In order for that to have any more impact that a wink and a nod, you'd have to engage the text and show me how it is contrary to patristic teaching.

Isn't the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed sufficiently authoritative for you?


Have you read Jarislav Pelikan's book on the Creeds?  Quite a good read.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Father is the Source of the Holy Spirit who spirates eternally from the Father and the Son as from one essential principle, since the Father and the Son are one in essence. 

The second part of that statement does not negate the Father as Source in any way.  It would be heresy to do so.

Apparently this Syrian Bishop understood that somewhat in advance of the filioque.

The fact that the Father must emit the Holy Spirit from the essence that is common to Him and the Son is a given, however going so far as to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is erroneous because it gives Him some role deserving of individual distinction in the procession of the Spirit, a role that only the Father should have.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: May 19, 2010, 09:57:45 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.


Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father (which the Son shares with Him) does not necessitate the Son having a direct role in the Spirit's procession. This statement is compatible with the idea that the Father is the one who issues forth the Spirit from His essence, an essence which He shares with the Son, though it is not by an action of the Son.

This is exactly right!!   It is not necessarily by an action of the Son, except in the economy of time!

That is the Catholic teaching.  That is what bekkos sees.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #81 on: May 19, 2010, 09:59:15 PM »

Quote
"Three and One, One and Three: for we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father, albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.

No problem with this, this is perfectly in keeping with Orthodox doctrine.

To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him [the Unbegotten], and to the Holy Spirit
Quote
who proceeds from their essence
, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

Note the bolded section:
Quote
proceeds from their essence
. Wrong, according to Orthodox doctrine. God the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Quote
In order for that to have any more impact that a wink and a nod, you'd have to engage the text and show me how it is contrary to patristic teaching.

Isn't the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed sufficiently authoritative for you?


Have you read Jarislav Pelikan's book on the Creeds?  Quite a good read.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Father is the Source of the Holy Spirit who spirates eternally from the Father and the Son as from one essential principle, since the Father and the Son are one in essence. 

The second part of that statement does not negate the Father as Source in any way.  It would be heresy to do so.

Apparently this Syrian Bishop understood that somewhat in advance of the filioque.

The fact that the Father must emit the Holy Spirit from the essence that is common to Him and the Son is a given, however going so far as to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is erroneous because it gives Him some role deserving of individual distinction in the procession of the Spirit, a role that only the Father should have.

But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #82 on: May 19, 2010, 10:05:04 PM »

Here are the most relevant quotes from the sermon:

"but he is begotten of the essence* of the Unbegotten"

"and one Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father"

"albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist"

"and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds† from their essence"

Now, it is certainly the case that the last quote is different from the other three in referring to "their essence" rather than to the essence of the Father. However, this is simply a logical conclusion of the former phrasing. The essence of the Father must be the common essence of the Trinity. What this sermon never does is ascribe the procession to the Son Himself, as the filioque most certainly does. If we are to imagine that the Father is the one who takes the eternal action to send forth the Holy Spirit from His essence and in His essence, if the Son has no direct role in this action, i.e. He is not the one that does the action, then it is perfectly understandable how we could say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (with respect to who does the issuing) but also from the common essence of the Trinity (with respect to from what the Holy Spirit issues from). However, what it would not be appropriate to say is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, as that is to appear to indicate that the Son actually is involved in the action with the Father of sending forth the Spirit.
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 #83 on: May 19, 2010, 10:06:58 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.


Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father (which the Son shares with Him) does not necessitate the Son having a direct role in the Spirit's procession. This statement is compatible with the idea that the Father is the one who issues forth the Spirit from His essence, an essence which He shares with the Son, though it is not by an action of the Son.

This is exactly right!!   It is not necessarily by an action of the Son, except in the economy of time!

That is the Catholic teaching.  That is what bekkos sees.

M.

I doubt that is the case.

If it is true, it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Trinity by the action of the Father, but it would not be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son Himself, where such an individual designation had only before been applied to who initiates the procession.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 10:07:14 PM by deusveritasest » 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: May 19, 2010, 10:08:09 PM »

Quote
"Three and One, One and Three: for we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father, albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.

No problem with this, this is perfectly in keeping with Orthodox doctrine.

To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him [the Unbegotten], and to the Holy Spirit
Quote
who proceeds from their essence
, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

Note the bolded section:
Quote
proceeds from their essence
. Wrong, according to Orthodox doctrine. God the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Quote
In order for that to have any more impact that a wink and a nod, you'd have to engage the text and show me how it is contrary to patristic teaching.

Isn't the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed sufficiently authoritative for you?


Have you read Jarislav Pelikan's book on the Creeds?  Quite a good read.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Father is the Source of the Holy Spirit who spirates eternally from the Father and the Son as from one essential principle, since the Father and the Son are one in essence.  

The second part of that statement does not negate the Father as Source in any way.  It would be heresy to do so.

Apparently this Syrian Bishop understood that somewhat in advance of the filioque.

The fact that the Father must emit the Holy Spirit from the essence that is common to Him and the Son is a given, however going so far as to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is erroneous because it gives Him some role deserving of individual distinction in the procession of the Spirit, a role that only the Father should have.

But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.

We simply do not agree on what the actual Western tradition on the matter is.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 10:08:37 PM by deusveritasest » 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 19, 2010, 10:09:24 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.


Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father (which the Son shares with Him) does not necessitate the Son having a direct role in the Spirit's procession. This statement is compatible with the idea that the Father is the one who issues forth the Spirit from His essence, an essence which He shares with the Son, though it is not by an action of the Son.

This is exactly right!!   It is not necessarily by an action of the Son, except in the economy of time!

That is the Catholic teaching.  That is what bekkos sees.

M.

I doubt that is the case.

If it is true, it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Trinity by the action of the Father, but it would not be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son Himself, where such an individual designation had only before been applied to who initiates the procession.

Filioque is added to the Creed and the meaning of it is explained as a teaching.  Not every element of the Creed is fully explicated in the language of the Creed itself.  That should not be required for the meaning to have credibility:   pardon the pun.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2010, 10:10:33 PM »

Quote
"Three and One, One and Three: for we profess one essence of the Holy Trinity, in three hypostases of perfect persons. For the person of the Father is not the person of the Son, nor is the person of the Son, or that of the Holy Spirit, the person of the Father, albeit it is, indeed, out of the one very essence of the Father that the Son and the Holy Spirit exist. For the Only-begotten Son, who before all ages exists both from the Father and with the Father, is God with God, and is, the very same, man with men, without any falling away from his divinity, even if he is found to have taken on manhood, nor is he cast down from his first nativity, even if, by his fleshly nativity from a virgin, he has appeared as one born in the flesh. Rather, even while he was in the Virgin’s womb, the heavens and the earth and the whole creation had not been emptied of him.

No problem with this, this is perfectly in keeping with Orthodox doctrine.

To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him [the Unbegotten], and to the Holy Spirit
Quote
who proceeds from their essence
, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

Note the bolded section:
Quote
proceeds from their essence
. Wrong, according to Orthodox doctrine. God the Father is the sole source of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Quote
In order for that to have any more impact that a wink and a nod, you'd have to engage the text and show me how it is contrary to patristic teaching.

Isn't the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed sufficiently authoritative for you?


Have you read Jarislav Pelikan's book on the Creeds?  Quite a good read.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Father is the Source of the Holy Spirit who spirates eternally from the Father and the Son as from one essential principle, since the Father and the Son are one in essence.  

The second part of that statement does not negate the Father as Source in any way.  It would be heresy to do so.

Apparently this Syrian Bishop understood that somewhat in advance of the filioque.

The fact that the Father must emit the Holy Spirit from the essence that is common to Him and the Son is a given, however going so far as to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is erroneous because it gives Him some role deserving of individual distinction in the procession of the Spirit, a role that only the Father should have.

But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.

We simply do not agree on what the actual Western tradition on the matter is.

That's all right.  I won't argue it then.  Perhaps one day...

Mary
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2010, 10:19:16 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.


Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father (which the Son shares with Him) does not necessitate the Son having a direct role in the Spirit's procession. This statement is compatible with the idea that the Father is the one who issues forth the Spirit from His essence, an essence which He shares with the Son, though it is not by an action of the Son.

This is exactly right!!   It is not necessarily by an action of the Son, except in the economy of time!

That is the Catholic teaching.  That is what bekkos sees.

M.

I doubt that is the case.

If it is true, it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Trinity by the action of the Father, but it would not be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son Himself, where such an individual designation had only before been applied to who initiates the procession.

Filioque is added to the Creed and the meaning of it is explained as a teaching.  Not every element of the Creed is fully explicated in the language of the Creed itself.  That should not be required for the meaning to have credibility:   pardon the pun.

M.

The original language of the Creed and the Bible when they say "the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father" both use a Greek word that very much indicates and ontological generation by the Father. To add the Son into the matter would logically thus incorporate the Son into the action of the procession (something which you say you don't even believe). I think the most logical conclusion is that you are rooted in the actual traditional teaching of the monarchy of the Father and are trying to conform the Western teaching to that; but I don't think that's possible because I do not think they mean the same thing by the filioque as you.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #88 on: May 19, 2010, 10:42:57 PM »

Quote
To God the Father, the Unbegotten, and to the Only-begotten Son, begotten from him, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds from their essence, to the Three in One substance, be all glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

The Father, not the Son, is the source of the Holy Spirit.


Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Father (which the Son shares with Him) does not necessitate the Son having a direct role in the Spirit's procession. This statement is compatible with the idea that the Father is the one who issues forth the Spirit from His essence, an essence which He shares with the Son, though it is not by an action of the Son.

This is exactly right!!   It is not necessarily by an action of the Son, except in the economy of time!

That is the Catholic teaching.  That is what bekkos sees.

M.

I doubt that is the case.

If it is true, it would be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the essence of the Trinity by the action of the Father, but it would not be appropriate to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son Himself, where such an individual designation had only before been applied to who initiates the procession.

Filioque is added to the Creed and the meaning of it is explained as a teaching.  Not every element of the Creed is fully explicated in the language of the Creed itself.  That should not be required for the meaning to have credibility:   pardon the pun.

M.

The original language of the Creed and the Bible when they say "the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father" both use a Greek word that very much indicates and ontological generation by the Father. To add the Son into the matter would logically thus incorporate the Son into the action of the procession (something which you say you don't even believe). I think the most logical conclusion is that you are rooted in the actual traditional teaching of the monarchy of the Father and are trying to conform the Western teaching to that; but I don't think that's possible because I do not think they mean the same thing by the filioque as you.

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

At any rate, it was good to find that bekkos did not engage the same old polemics.  It is encouraging.

Mary
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #89 on: May 19, 2010, 10:54:20 PM »

But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.

I find it hard to believe that you can assert this with a straight face, considering Pope Leo III's forbidding the addition of the filioque to the Creed (and I would like to see what the source is of the Oxford Dictionary of Christian Worship's assertion that he held to the doctrine while rejecting the addition).

What think ye of the following: http://aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 11:00:09 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #90 on: May 19, 2010, 11:14:44 PM »

Quote
But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.

Said by someone who doggedly asserts that the IC was also a teaching of the Orthodox Church in the first 1500 years of its life.  Roll Eyes Why are we not surprised?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 11:15:34 PM by LBK » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2010, 11:20:44 PM »

But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.

I find it hard to believe that you can assert this with a straight face, considering Pope Leo III's forbidding the addition of the filioque to the Creed (and I would like to see what the source is of the Oxford Dictionary of Christian Worship's assertion that he held to the doctrine while rejecting the addition).

What think ye of the following: http://aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html

Thomas Ross's discussion of the filioque has never made sense to me.  He clearly does not grasp Catholic teaching and so it is impossible to offer a genuine commentary on his essay based upon Catholic teaching concerning the filioque.  

It would be much like answering the question "When did you stop beating your wife"?  You might say that you never did beat your wife but then the response would be "That is NOT what I asked you!!"

At any rate Dr. Gilbert does apparently grasp Catholic teaching and the history of the teaching and he definitely is Orthodox, so that is a good thing to witness in this world of common misunderstandings.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #92 on: May 19, 2010, 11:22:55 PM »

Quote
But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.

Said by someone who doggedly asserts that the IC was also a teaching of the Orthodox Church in the first 1500 years of its life.  Roll Eyes Why are we not surprised?

Dear LBK,

I very carefully explained to you what I assert concerning the IC and Orthodox objections and this is not part of it.  Now I have said it several times in the last few days so I will publicly protest this continuation of a false attribution to my thoughts and clearly expressed points.

This is not honest dialogue by any means.

I'd thank you to stop doing this.

Mary
Logged

LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,877


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #93 on: May 20, 2010, 12:11:18 AM »

Quote
But that is not what the Catholic teaching is saying.  You had it and now moved away from it.

Said by someone who doggedly asserts that the IC was also a teaching of the Orthodox Church in the first 1500 years of its life.  Roll Eyes Why are we not surprised?

Dear LBK,

I very carefully explained to you what I assert concerning the IC and Orthodox objections and this is not part of it.  Now I have said it several times in the last few days so I will publicly protest this continuation of a false attribution to my thoughts and clearly expressed points.

This is not honest dialogue by any means.

I'd thank you to stop doing this.

Mary

Last time I checked, you were quite the proponent of Fr Kucharek's view:

Quote
How did Orthodoxy come to reject the Immaculate Conception of the Theotokos? Fr. Kucharek concludes:

The Greek Orthodox Church's belief in the immaculate conception continued unanimously until the fifteenth century, then many Greek theologians began to adopt the idea that Mary had been made immaculate at the moment of the Annunciation.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23379.msg430645.html#msg430645

On the matter of the Annunciation:

The hymnographers for the Orthodox hymnody of this feast include Sts John of Damascus, Andrew of Crete, and Theophanes the Branded. All were contemporaries of each other, so the hymnography dates to no later than the early 800s. St Theodore, who wrote the Matins festal canon, died c.835. Again, Fr Kucharek is spectacularly wrong in his estimations.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #94 on: May 20, 2010, 07:36:08 AM »

Thomas Ross's discussion of the filioque has never made sense to me.  He clearly does not grasp Catholic teaching and so it is impossible to offer a genuine commentary on his essay based upon Catholic teaching concerning the filioque. 

How about commentary on his point (about 3/4 down the page) viz-a-viz the historical language of eternal double-procession in RC dogmatic statements?

At any rate Dr. Gilbert does apparently grasp Catholic teaching and the history of the teaching and he definitely is Orthodox, so that is a good thing to witness in this world of common misunderstandings.

I don't know how seriously I can take the conclusions of a man who makes such blatantly false statements as, "It was on account of people like him, who preferred the Turban to the Tiara, that the Greek nation was shortly afterwards submerged in darkness and slavery for four hundred years."  When examining the man's writings, an unsupportable and patently untrue statement like that is akin to finding self-inflicted gangrene in a medical examination: there is a problem, and it is going to effect everything around it.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #95 on: May 20, 2010, 07:59:29 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/

There goes all hope of union!  I mean, if only one American convert is able to grasp the Catholic position on the filioque, all those international theological meetings are a bit of a waste of time and money.   laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #96 on: May 20, 2010, 08:11:28 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/


Here is proof that at least one Eastern Catholic has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching and to penetrate and explain the error of the teaching

http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 20, 2010, 09:45:58 AM »

Thomas Ross's discussion of the filioque has never made sense to me.  He clearly does not grasp Catholic teaching and so it is impossible to offer a genuine commentary on his essay based upon Catholic teaching concerning the filioque. 

How about commentary on his point (about 3/4 down the page) viz-a-viz the historical language of eternal double-procession in RC dogmatic statements?

At any rate Dr. Gilbert does apparently grasp Catholic teaching and the history of the teaching and he definitely is Orthodox, so that is a good thing to witness in this world of common misunderstandings.

I don't know how seriously I can take the conclusions of a man who makes such blatantly false statements as, "It was on account of people like him, who preferred the Turban to the Tiara, that the Greek nation was shortly afterwards submerged in darkness and slavery for four hundred years."  When examining the man's writings, an unsupportable and patently untrue statement like that is akin to finding self-inflicted gangrene in a medical examination: there is a problem, and it is going to effect everything around it.

Thomas Ross deals in literal black and white and does not account for meaning, much the same way Father Ambrose insists on it, when speaking of original sin. 

So you see as long as you are not willing to accept Catholics when they explain meaning then you control the terms of the discussion and there's no dialogue.  You simply rear up and inform us of what we have taught for 2000 years...or not.  It's a nice position to be in.  Ask any of the British colonies who wrote their early histories and how the indigenes fared in the telling....

Also Dr. Gilbert is an historian and I expect he'd not make those kinds of statements had he not had some experience with texts to have allowed him to say what he said.  He is certainly not anti-Orthodox.   But he does not back off an historical truth if he finds one simply because it is inconvenient.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 20, 2010, 09:57:51 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/

There goes all hope of union!  I mean, if only one American convert is able to grasp the Catholic position on the filioque, all those international theological meetings are a bit of a waste of time and money.   laugh

Makes one curious to know how these decks are stacked.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #99 on: May 20, 2010, 10:02:41 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/


Here is proof that at least one Eastern Catholic has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching and to penetrate and explain the error of the teaching

http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque


Tod Kaster's has all kinds of baggage and does not bring the cool light of scholarship to bear on much of anything at all.  He plays on people's ignorance of certain issues and whines when he is caught out.  But his daddy is dead and he struggles to find his way in a pretty rough world...as much as you can call universities rough.  My heart goes out to the young man.

If you can find serious proof that Dr. Gilbert is as hot-headed as that poor kiddo taking care of his aging mama all by himself, then you let me know.
Logged

LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,038



WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 20, 2010, 10:13:52 AM »


Okay....just a silly question from a non-intellectual.

How can one explain the following:

        "And in one Lord Jesus Christ.....who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;"

...if in fact they claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son, how can item #3 which proceeds from item #2, actually be an integral part of incarnating item #2?

Does not that statement alone make it clear that both God the Son and God the Holy Spirit must proceed from God the Father?

I'm just saying....



Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #101 on: May 20, 2010, 10:15:42 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/


Here is proof that at least one Eastern Catholic has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching and to penetrate and explain the error of the teaching

http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque


Tod Kaster's has all kinds of baggage and does not bring the cool light of scholarship to bear on much of anything at all.

And Gilbert has some special insight?  The  mere fact that her has called his website "bekkos" is enough.  Read up on Patriarch Bekkos.  How many monks on the Holy Mountain were killed and burnt alive?  His name in universally despised by the Orthodox.  Apart of course from Gilbert who has so much more insight than the Church and its recorded history which has got it all wrong. 

Quote
If you can find serious proof that Dr. Gilbert is as hot-headed as that poor kiddo taking care of his aging mama all by himself, then you let me know.

What inferences are you trying to make?

Gilbert's site says that he lives at home, he is 49 years old, with his daddy.   

Don't you live all alone yourself and take care of your own aging mama? 

Phew, but you're quick to hand out ad hominems and attack those who disagree with you.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #102 on: May 20, 2010, 10:18:40 AM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

I must take exception to this. I don't think there is any disrespect in referring to the Blessed Mother as "Mary." It is a holy name, made sacred by the bearer of it.

We also call her by many other names. Some examples, to show that we Catholics hold her in the highest esteem possible for a creature of God:

the Blessed Virgin

the Blessed Mother

the Mother of God

Immaculate Mary

Saint Mary

Holy Mary

Our Lady

the Madonna

Queen of Heaven

Queen of Peace

Star of the Sea

Throne of Wisdom

Cause of Our Joy

Mother of Mercy

Ark of the Covenant

Mediatrix of All Graces

Tower of Ivory

Empress of the World

Gate of Heaven

Help of Christians

the Immaculate Heart

House of Gold

Mother of the World

Mirror of Justice

Joy of the Just

Holy Virgin of Virgins

Morning Star

Mother Inviolate

Mystical Rose

the New Eve

Tabernacle of the Lord

Temple of the Most Holy Trinity

Queen of Angels

Queen of the Apostles

Refuge of Sinners

Seat of Wisdom

Tower of David

Spouse of the Holy Spirit

Holy Virgin of Virgins

Our Lady of Sorrows

Our Lady of Grace

Our Lady of the Rosary

Our Lady of Good Health

Our Lady of Good Success

Our Lady of Good Counsel

Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal

the Immaculate Conception

Our Lady of Mount Carmel
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Our Lady of Kazan
Our Lady of Lourdes
Our Lady of Fatima
Our Lady of America
Our Lady of La Salette
Our Lady of Akita
Our Lady of Walsingham
Our Lady of the Snows
Our Lady of Loreto
Our Lady of Lebanon
Our Lady of Knock
Our Lady of the Pillar
(many others of this kind)

Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #103 on: May 20, 2010, 10:24:25 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/


Here is proof that at least one Eastern Catholic has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching and to penetrate and explain the error of the teaching

http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque


Tod Kaster's has all kinds of baggage and does not bring the cool light of scholarship to bear on much of anything at all.

And Gilbert has some special insight?  The  mere fact that her has called his website "bekkos" is enough.  Read up on Patriarch Bekkos.  How many monks on the Holy Mountain were killed and burnt alive?  His name in universally despised by the Orthodox.  Apart of course from Gilbert who has so much more insight than the Church and its recorded history which has got it all wrong. 

Quote
If you can find serious proof that Dr. Gilbert is as hot-headed as that poor kiddo taking care of his aging mama all by himself, then you let me know.

What inferences are you trying to make?

Gilbert's site says that he lives at home, he is 49 years old, with his daddy.   

Don't you live all alone yourself and take care of your own aging mama? 

Phew, but you're quick to hand out ad hominems and attack those who disagree with you.

You know Todd as well as I do.  He's young and he's immature and he is not particularly capable in his chosen field.  Over and over again he's been picked apart by older more mature scholars, right out in the Internet open where anyone can watch.

Yes.  Peter takes care of his father, and I take care of my mother and there's a vast difference in capabilities among us.  Peter is the most intellectually capable of all three of us, if for no other reason that he can read the originals in the original languages and does not carry the kind of baggage Todd carries nor does he care if his peers approve his work or not.  His intellectual honesty comes first.  Todd wants desperately to be unique and to belong simultaneously. 

M.
Logged

LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,038



WWW
« Reply #104 on: May 20, 2010, 10:26:21 AM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

I must take exception to this. I don't think there is any disrespect in referring to the Blessed Mother as "Mary." It is a holy name, made sacred by the bearer of it.


Yes...well....I've also met too many Roman Catholics named "Jesus"...which I also find disrespectful.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #105 on: May 20, 2010, 10:29:36 AM »

Do you find people named Joshua disrespectful?

Etymologically speaking, it's the same name. 
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 20, 2010, 10:30:19 AM »

Life

John Bekkos was born in Nicaea among the exiles from Constantinople during the period of Latin occupation of that city, and died in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory near the entrance to the Gulf of Nicomedia.[1] Our knowledge of Bekkos’s life is derived from his own writings, from writings of Byzantine historians such as George Pachymeres[2] and Nicephorus Gregoras, from writings against him by Gregory of Cyprus and others, and from defences of him by supporters of ecclesiastical union like Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites. Bekkos’s history is closely bound up with the fortunes of the Union of the Churches declared at the Second Council of Lyon (1274), a union promoted by Pope Gregory X in the West and Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus in the East. The union policy of Michael VIII was largely politically motivated,[3] and Bekkos at first opposed it; but, after Michael VIII had had him imprisoned in the Tower of Anemas for speaking out against it, Bekkos changed his mind (1273); a reading of such Greek church fathers as St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius convinced Bekkos that theological differences between the Greek and Latin Churches had been exaggerated.[4] After Patriarch Joseph I Galesiotes abdicated early in 1275 due to his opposition to the Council of Lyon, Bekkos was elected to replace him. His relationship with the emperor was sometimes stormy; although Michael VIII depended on Bekkos for maintaining his empire’s peace with the West, he was annoyed by Bekkos’s repeated intercessions on behalf of the poor. Michael was a crafty man, and knew how to make the Patriarch’s life miserable by sundry small humiliations, until, in March, 1279, Bekkos quit in disgust, and had to be coaxed back to undertake the job again (August 6, 1279). The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

The ecclesial union engineered by Michael VIII was never popular in Byzantium, and, after his death (December 11, 1282), his son and successor, Andronicus II, repudiated it. On the day after Christmas, 1282, John Bekkos withdrew to a monastery; the former patriarch, Joseph I, was brought into the city on a stretcher, and a series of councils and public meetings ensued, led by a group of anti-unionist monks. Bekkos, in fear of violent death at the hands of a mob, was induced to sign a formal renunciation of his unionist opinions and of his priesthood (January, 1283), a renunciation which he afterwards disowned as extorted under duress, but which was used against him. [8] After this, Bekkos spent some years under house arrest at a large monastery in Prusa in Asia Minor. From there, he began a literary campaign to exonerate himself, and succeeded in having a council called to reexamine his case; it took place at the imperial palace of Blachernae in Constantinople, meeting in several sessions from February to August in the year 1285. Although the Council of Blachernae reaffirmed Bekkos’s earlier condemnation, in the council’s aftermath Bekkos, by a series of writings, succeeded in bringing its dogmatic statement against him (the Tomus of 1285) into such disrepute that its principal author, the Patriarch Gregory II, resigned (1289). Bekkos saw this as vindicating his position. He spent the remaining years of his life in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory, revising his writings, maintaining friendly relations with the Emperor and prominent Byzantine churchmen, but unwilling to give up his unionist opinions; he died in 1297.[9]
[edit] Thought

The basis of John Bekkos’s quarrel with his contemporaries was a disagreement with them over the implications of a traditional patristic formula, that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (in Greek, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ). Already in the ninth century, this expression was being pushed in two different directions: Latin writers saw it as implying the Augustinian doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque); Greek writers, especially from the time of Patriarch Photios onward, saw it as consistent with the view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Bekkos originally agreed with the Photian view, but his reading of the Greek fathers, and of medieval Greek writers like Nicephorus Blemmydes and Nicetas of Maroneia, caused him to change his mind. Much of John XI Bekkos’s debate with Gregory II was a debate over the meaning of texts from St. Cyril and other fathers, whose wording (the Spirit “exists from the Son”; the Spirit “fountains forth eternally” from the Son, etc.) Bekkos saw as consistent with the Latin doctrine, while Gregory of Cyprus interpreted such texts as necessarily referring to an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son. This thirteenth-century debate has considerable relevance for current-day ecumenical discussions between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: May 20, 2010, 10:37:58 AM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

I must take exception to this. I don't think there is any disrespect in referring to the Blessed Mother as "Mary." It is a holy name, made sacred by the bearer of it.


You must have youth on your side.   laugh Those of us brought up in Catholics schools before Vatican II will remember the rap on the hand with a wooden ruler or a leather strap if we used "Jesus" or "Mary."

I know that it still can make older Catholics flinch to hear the names being thrown around today.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: May 20, 2010, 10:40:06 AM »

I congratulate you, Mary.   Maybe you have written that at an earlier date for another Forum but if you have penned it in a few short minutes, you are a miracle!


Life

John Bekkos was born in Nicaea among the exiles from Constantinople during the period of Latin occupation of that city, and died in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory near the entrance to the Gulf of Nicomedia.[1] Our knowledge of Bekkos’s life is derived from his own writings, from writings of Byzantine historians such as George Pachymeres[2] and Nicephorus Gregoras, from writings against him by Gregory of Cyprus and others, and from defences of him by supporters of ecclesiastical union like Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites. Bekkos’s history is closely bound up with the fortunes of the Union of the Churches declared at the Second Council of Lyon (1274), a union promoted by Pope Gregory X in the West and Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus in the East. The union policy of Michael VIII was largely politically motivated,[3] and Bekkos at first opposed it; but, after Michael VIII had had him imprisoned in the Tower of Anemas for speaking out against it, Bekkos changed his mind (1273); a reading of such Greek church fathers as St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius convinced Bekkos that theological differences between the Greek and Latin Churches had been exaggerated.[4] After Patriarch Joseph I Galesiotes abdicated early in 1275 due to his opposition to the Council of Lyon, Bekkos was elected to replace him. His relationship with the emperor was sometimes stormy; although Michael VIII depended on Bekkos for maintaining his empire’s peace with the West, he was annoyed by Bekkos’s repeated intercessions on behalf of the poor. Michael was a crafty man, and knew how to make the Patriarch’s life miserable by sundry small humiliations, until, in March, 1279, Bekkos quit in disgust, and had to be coaxed back to undertake the job again (August 6, 1279). The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

The ecclesial union engineered by Michael VIII was never popular in Byzantium, and, after his death (December 11, 1282), his son and successor, Andronicus II, repudiated it. On the day after Christmas, 1282, John Bekkos withdrew to a monastery; the former patriarch, Joseph I, was brought into the city on a stretcher, and a series of councils and public meetings ensued, led by a group of anti-unionist monks. Bekkos, in fear of violent death at the hands of a mob, was induced to sign a formal renunciation of his unionist opinions and of his priesthood (January, 1283), a renunciation which he afterwards disowned as extorted under duress, but which was used against him. [8] After this, Bekkos spent some years under house arrest at a large monastery in Prusa in Asia Minor. From there, he began a literary campaign to exonerate himself, and succeeded in having a council called to reexamine his case; it took place at the imperial palace of Blachernae in Constantinople, meeting in several sessions from February to August in the year 1285. Although the Council of Blachernae reaffirmed Bekkos’s earlier condemnation, in the council’s aftermath Bekkos, by a series of writings, succeeded in bringing its dogmatic statement against him (the Tomus of 1285) into such disrepute that its principal author, the Patriarch Gregory II, resigned (1289). Bekkos saw this as vindicating his position. He spent the remaining years of his life in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory, revising his writings, maintaining friendly relations with the Emperor and prominent Byzantine churchmen, but unwilling to give up his unionist opinions; he died in 1297.[9]
[edit] Thought

The basis of John Bekkos’s quarrel with his contemporaries was a disagreement with them over the implications of a traditional patristic formula, that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (in Greek, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ). Already in the ninth century, this expression was being pushed in two different directions: Latin writers saw it as implying the Augustinian doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque); Greek writers, especially from the time of Patriarch Photios onward, saw it as consistent with the view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Bekkos originally agreed with the Photian view, but his reading of the Greek fathers, and of medieval Greek writers like Nicephorus Blemmydes and Nicetas of Maroneia, caused him to change his mind. Much of John XI Bekkos’s debate with Gregory II was a debate over the meaning of texts from St. Cyril and other fathers, whose wording (the Spirit “exists from the Son”; the Spirit “fountains forth eternally” from the Son, etc.) Bekkos saw as consistent with the Latin doctrine, while Gregory of Cyprus interpreted such texts as necessarily referring to an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son. This thirteenth-century debate has considerable relevance for current-day ecumenical discussions between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 20, 2010, 10:41:13 AM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

I must take exception to this. I don't think there is any disrespect in referring to the Blessed Mother as "Mary." It is a holy name, made sacred by the bearer of it.


You must have youth on your side.   laugh Those of us brought up in Catholics schools before Vatican II will remember the rap on the hand with a wooden ruler or a leather strap if we used "Jesus" or "Mary."

I know that it still can make older Catholics flinch to hear the names being thrown around today.

The Blessed Mother of God, or Most Holy Mother of God could be abbreviated to the Virgin Mother or the Blessed Mother.

But the name of Jesus could be invoked and was encouraged to be prayerfully invoked at any time, or at all times.

In my experience.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #110 on: May 20, 2010, 10:42:34 AM »

Life

John Bekkos was born in Nicaea among the exiles from Constantinople during the period of Latin occupation of that city....

Gotta love that Wikipedia!  Roll Eyes


The Holy martyrs of Vatopedi were the same in number as the twelve holy Apostles.  Along with the abbot Efthymios they were martyred for our holy faith during the savage invasion of the papal-minded Emperor Michael Paleologos and Patriarch Vekkos.  The twelve were hung at Fourkovounion, and Efthymios was plunged with chains into the sea of Kalamidjiou.
(An Athonite Gerontikon)
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 20, 2010, 10:44:50 AM »

I congratulate you, Mary.   Maybe you have written that at an earlier date for another Forum but if you have penned it in a few short minutes, you are a miracle!


Life

John Bekkos was born in Nicaea among the exiles from Constantinople during the period of Latin occupation of that city, and died in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory near the entrance to the Gulf of Nicomedia.[1] Our knowledge of Bekkos’s life is derived from his own writings, from writings of Byzantine historians such as George Pachymeres[2] and Nicephorus Gregoras, from writings against him by Gregory of Cyprus and others, and from defences of him by supporters of ecclesiastical union like Constantine Meliteniotes and George Metochites. Bekkos’s history is closely bound up with the fortunes of the Union of the Churches declared at the Second Council of Lyon (1274), a union promoted by Pope Gregory X in the West and Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus in the East. The union policy of Michael VIII was largely politically motivated,[3] and Bekkos at first opposed it; but, after Michael VIII had had him imprisoned in the Tower of Anemas for speaking out against it, Bekkos changed his mind (1273); a reading of such Greek church fathers as St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius convinced Bekkos that theological differences between the Greek and Latin Churches had been exaggerated.[4] After Patriarch Joseph I Galesiotes abdicated early in 1275 due to his opposition to the Council of Lyon, Bekkos was elected to replace him. His relationship with the emperor was sometimes stormy; although Michael VIII depended on Bekkos for maintaining his empire’s peace with the West, he was annoyed by Bekkos’s repeated intercessions on behalf of the poor. Michael was a crafty man, and knew how to make the Patriarch’s life miserable by sundry small humiliations, until, in March, 1279, Bekkos quit in disgust, and had to be coaxed back to undertake the job again (August 6, 1279). The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

The ecclesial union engineered by Michael VIII was never popular in Byzantium, and, after his death (December 11, 1282), his son and successor, Andronicus II, repudiated it. On the day after Christmas, 1282, John Bekkos withdrew to a monastery; the former patriarch, Joseph I, was brought into the city on a stretcher, and a series of councils and public meetings ensued, led by a group of anti-unionist monks. Bekkos, in fear of violent death at the hands of a mob, was induced to sign a formal renunciation of his unionist opinions and of his priesthood (January, 1283), a renunciation which he afterwards disowned as extorted under duress, but which was used against him. [8] After this, Bekkos spent some years under house arrest at a large monastery in Prusa in Asia Minor. From there, he began a literary campaign to exonerate himself, and succeeded in having a council called to reexamine his case; it took place at the imperial palace of Blachernae in Constantinople, meeting in several sessions from February to August in the year 1285. Although the Council of Blachernae reaffirmed Bekkos’s earlier condemnation, in the council’s aftermath Bekkos, by a series of writings, succeeded in bringing its dogmatic statement against him (the Tomus of 1285) into such disrepute that its principal author, the Patriarch Gregory II, resigned (1289). Bekkos saw this as vindicating his position. He spent the remaining years of his life in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory, revising his writings, maintaining friendly relations with the Emperor and prominent Byzantine churchmen, but unwilling to give up his unionist opinions; he died in 1297.[9]
[edit] Thought

The basis of John Bekkos’s quarrel with his contemporaries was a disagreement with them over the implications of a traditional patristic formula, that states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (in Greek, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ). Already in the ninth century, this expression was being pushed in two different directions: Latin writers saw it as implying the Augustinian doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque); Greek writers, especially from the time of Patriarch Photios onward, saw it as consistent with the view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. Bekkos originally agreed with the Photian view, but his reading of the Greek fathers, and of medieval Greek writers like Nicephorus Blemmydes and Nicetas of Maroneia, caused him to change his mind. Much of John XI Bekkos’s debate with Gregory II was a debate over the meaning of texts from St. Cyril and other fathers, whose wording (the Spirit “exists from the Son”; the Spirit “fountains forth eternally” from the Son, etc.) Bekkos saw as consistent with the Latin doctrine, while Gregory of Cyprus interpreted such texts as necessarily referring to an eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit through or from the Son. This thirteenth-century debate has considerable relevance for current-day ecumenical discussions between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

I thought the link was there.  Here it is and I went back and got the notes too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_John_XI_of_Constantinople

Notes

   1. ^ The site of Bekkos's place of captivity is mentioned by George Pachymeres, De Andronico Palaeologo I.35.
   2. ^ Pachymeres, who knew and respected Bekkos though he disagreed with him on matters of theology, provides the basic historical framework for most accounts of Bekkos's life, e.g., the studies by Joseph Gill. See also Manuel Sotomayor, “El Patriarca Becos, según Jorge Paquimeres (Semblanza histórica),” Estudios Eclesiásticos 31 (1957), 327-358.
   3. ^ "He entered on the project of Church union unquestionably from political motives. He achieved it and maintained it for the same ends in spite of opposition. But it seems to me that in the course of his negotiations he became sincerely convinced that it was justified also from the theological point of view." J. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (1979), p. 180.
   4. ^ See Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, V.15; Gregoras, Rhomaïke Historia, V.2, §§6-7. Although it has been customary to view Bekkos's change of mind as a "conversion" from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, some recent scholars question this; see esp. Gerhard Richter, “Johannes Bekkos und sein Verhältnis zur römischen Kirche,” Byzantinische Forschungen 15 (1990), 167-217, and A. Riebe, Rom in Gemeinschaft mit Konstantinopel (2005), passim. On the other hand, Vitalien Laurent notes, with regard to a letter written by Bekkos to Pope John XXI in 1277, that "Byzantine literature in fact knows no other text in which the rights of the Roman pontiff are as solemnly and as explicitly acknowledged" (Laurent, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I, fasc. IV [Paris 1971], pp. 255 f.), and Peter Gilbert says that his change of mind was genuine: "it cannot be ascribed merely to self-interest or political considerations, and it determined the subsequent course of John Bekkos's career" (Peter Gilbert, Not an Anthologist: John Bekkos as a Reader of the Fathers, in Communio 36 (Summer 2009), p. 269).
   5. ^ On Michael's "reign of terror," see Gill, op. cit., pp. 176 f. Riebe, Rom in Gemeinschaft mit Konstantinopel, p. 113, notes that neither Pachymeres nor Gregoras mention any participation by Bekkos in the emperor's campaign of violence, and that, furthermore, the general picture of Bekkos's character furnished by historians and by his own writings makes such participation unlikely. See also Ioannes Anastasiou, Ὁ θρυλούμενος διωγμὸς τῶν ἁγιορειτῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Μιχαὴλ Η´ Παλαιολόγου καὶ τοῦ Ἰωάννου Βέκκου, in: Ἀθωνικὴ πολιτεία (Thessaloniki, 1963), pp. 207-257; Anastasiou critically examines the claim that Michael and Bekkos descended upon Mt. Athos with a Latin army to persecute the monks; he rejects most of it as pious legend.
   6. ^ Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, VI.23 (Bekker ed., p. 481).
   7. ^ See J. Gill, "The Church union of the Council of Lyons (1274) portrayed in Greek documents," Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40 (1974), 5-45, esp. pp. 43 f.
   8. ^ The text was incorporated in Gregory of Cyprus's Tomus, translated by Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium (1997), pp. 216 f. Cf. also Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (1979), p. 294: "Beccus later declared that he then bowed before the storm because there was no possibility of having a hearing for his defence, but with the firm intention, which he expressed at the time to Metochites, 'as soon as the storm had died down a little of coming into the open before those responsible and the instigators to defend the truth openly.'"
   9. ^ For the date 1297, see especially V. Laurent, "Le date de la mort de Jean Beccos," Echos d'Orient 25 (1926), 316-319.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #112 on: May 20, 2010, 10:45:54 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/


Here is proof that at least one Eastern Catholic has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching and to penetrate and explain the error of the teaching

http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque


Tod Kaster's has all kinds of baggage and does not bring the cool light of scholarship to bear on much of anything at all.

And Gilbert has some special insight?  The  mere fact that her has called his website "bekkos" is enough.  Read up on Patriarch Bekkos.  How many monks on the Holy Mountain were killed and burnt alive?  His name in universally despised by the Orthodox.  Apart of course from Gilbert who has so much more insight than the Church and its recorded history which has got it all wrong.  

Quote
If you can find serious proof that Dr. Gilbert is as hot-headed as that poor kiddo taking care of his aging mama all by himself, then you let me know.

What inferences are you trying to make?

Gilbert's site says that he lives at home, he is 49 years old, with his daddy.  

Don't you live all alone yourself and take care of your own aging mama?  

Phew, but you're quick to hand out ad hominems and attack those who disagree with you.

You know Todd as well as I do.  He's young and he's immature and he is not particularly capable in his chosen field.  Over and over again he's been picked apart by older more mature scholars, right out in the Internet open where anyone can watch.

I think you could be thinking of another person.  Todd Kaster is sometimes attacked by Marduk and Ghosty on "the other forum" but he always bests them.  They cannot match his knowledge, especially in the area of pneumatology. Steubenville can be proud of his skills.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 20, 2010, 10:47:07 AM »

Life

John Bekkos was born in Nicaea among the exiles from Constantinople during the period of Latin occupation of that city....

Gotta love that Wikipedia!  Roll Eyes


The Holy martyrs of Vatopedi were the same in number as the twelve holy Apostles.  Along with the abbot Efthymios they were martyred for our holy faith during the savage invasion of the papal-minded Emperor Michael Paleologos and Patriarch Vekkos.  The twelve were hung at Fourkovounion, and Efthymios was plunged with chains into the sea of Kalamidjiou.
(An Athonite Gerontikon)

There is serious scholarly doubt raised that John Bekkos can be implicated in the violence.  So you gotta love an honest scholar...or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #114 on: May 20, 2010, 10:48:50 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #115 on: May 20, 2010, 10:49:41 AM »

Here's proof that there is at least one Orthodox person who has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching:


http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/notes-on-a-text-by-severian-of-gabala/


Here is proof that at least one Eastern Catholic has the capacity to grasp what the filioque means in Catholic teaching and to penetrate and explain the error of the teaching

http://sites.google.com/site/thetaboriclight/filioque


Tod Kaster's has all kinds of baggage and does not bring the cool light of scholarship to bear on much of anything at all.

And Gilbert has some special insight?  The  mere fact that her has called his website "bekkos" is enough.  Read up on Patriarch Bekkos.  How many monks on the Holy Mountain were killed and burnt alive?  His name in universally despised by the Orthodox.  Apart of course from Gilbert who has so much more insight than the Church and its recorded history which has got it all wrong.  

Quote
If you can find serious proof that Dr. Gilbert is as hot-headed as that poor kiddo taking care of his aging mama all by himself, then you let me know.

What inferences are you trying to make?

Gilbert's site says that he lives at home, he is 49 years old, with his daddy.  

Don't you live all alone yourself and take care of your own aging mama?  

Phew, but you're quick to hand out ad hominems and attack those who disagree with you.

You know Todd as well as I do.  He's young and he's immature and he is not particularly capable in his chosen field.  Over and over again he's been picked apart by older more mature scholars, right out in the Internet open where anyone can watch.

I think you could be thinking of another person.  Todd Kaster is sometimes attacked by Marduk and Ghosty on "the other forum" but he always bests them.  They cannot match his knowledge, especially in the area of pneumatology. Steubenville can be proud of his skills.

The kid talks in philosophical circles and ignores all text that does not support his cause.  He has never bested Ghosty.  

Ghosty knows when to let something rest because to go on would simply be cruel.

Besides when Todd gets pushed to the wall he whines that he is alone and taking care of his mother and does not have time to address the criticisms fully.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #116 on: May 20, 2010, 10:52:08 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #117 on: May 20, 2010, 11:02:29 AM »


Besides when Todd gets pushed to the wall he whines that he is alone and taking care of his mother and does not have time to address the criticisms fully.


I have been on the same boards for several years and do not recall that ever happening.

Marduk, on the other hand, is quite adept at getting out of discussions he is loosing by going off for a week on urgent business. laugh

You may be conflating Gilbert and his father and Marduk and his absences?
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #118 on: May 20, 2010, 11:04:19 AM »

but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.

No evidence that he supported it? No evidence that he attempted to stop it? No evidence that he condemned the murders after they were committed?  Huh

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #119 on: May 20, 2010, 11:04:40 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]


Was this article in Wiki composed by Gilbert?  Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: May 20, 2010, 11:15:45 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

I thought as much.

Look at the bottom of the page of the history of this article and you will see it was written by <surprise!> Gilbert.  No wonder it accentuates what he wants to accentuate.  laugh

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriarch_John_XI_of_Constantinople&action=history

I notice he has not been so foolhardy as to include this article on Orthodowiki where it would be noticed by Greek Orthodox scholars.

.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #121 on: May 20, 2010, 11:18:23 AM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

I must take exception to this. I don't think there is any disrespect in referring to the Blessed Mother as "Mary." It is a holy name, made sacred by the bearer of it.


Yes...well....I've also met too many Roman Catholics named "Jesus"...which I also find disrespectful.



LOL, as an English-speaking Catholic, I also find all of the Hispanics named Jesús a bit on the odd side, as well!

Though I would not impugn disrespect on the pious parents who gave their sons such a name. Smiley
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #122 on: May 20, 2010, 11:25:36 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

I thought as much.

Look at the bottom of the page of the history of this article and you will see it was written by <surprise!> Gilbert.  No wonder it accentuates what he wants to accentuate.  laugh

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriarch_John_XI_of_Constantinople&action=history

I notice he has not been so foolhardy as to include this article on Orthodowiki where it would be noticed by Greek Orthodox scholars.

.

It seems to have undergone some steady revision as well and nobody has challenged the basic scholarship and there are even some Greek sounding names among the revisionists:

Revision history of Patriarch John XI of Constantinople
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
View logs for this page
Jump to:navigation, search
Browse history From year (and earlier): From month (and earlier):  Tag filter:   Deleted only
For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary.
External tools: Revision history statistics · Revision history search · Number of watchers · Page view statistics (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version,  m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary
(latest | earliest) View (newer 50  | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

    * (cur | prev) 15:02, 8 May 2010 Esoglou (talk | contribs) (14,967 bytes) (→Life: added more recent judgment) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 14:48, 8 May 2010 Esoglou (talk | contribs) (14,584 bytes) (→External links: added a recent study) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 17:08, 10 December 2009 Cplakidas (talk | contribs) (14,445 bytes) (→Life) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 16:36, 31 October 2009 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (14,418 bytes) (Added a picture.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 23:18, 30 September 2009 Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) m (14,273 bytes) (Removed category Former Eastern Orthodox Christians (using HotCat)) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 00:43, 10 September 2009 Cydebot (talk | contribs) m (14,321 bytes) (Robot - Moving category Orthodox converts to Catholicism to Converts to Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 24.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 19:28, 21 August 2009 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) m (14,307 bytes) (Fix Roman numerals in defaultsort or other GF: using AWB) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 07:35, 18 August 2009 BRUTE (talk | contribs) m (14,277 bytes) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 16:13, 24 February 2009 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (14,172 bytes) (Corrected a historical error, and supplied a footnote.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 02:39, 10 February 2009 Cydebot (talk | contribs) m (14,043 bytes) (Robot - Speedily moving category 13th century Eastern Orthodox bishops to 13th-century Eastern Orthodox bishops per CFD.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 09:08, 31 January 2009 Cydebot (talk | contribs) m (14,043 bytes) (Robot - Speedily moving category 13th century Byzantine people to 13th-century Byzantine people per CFD.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 01:33, 23 January 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (14,043 bytes) (Remove ibid tag cleanly) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 14:52, 22 January 2009 Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) m (14,070 bytes) (Reverted edits by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk) to last version by SmackBot) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 21:43, 21 January 2009 Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs) m (14,063 bytes) (Reverted edits by SmackBot (talk) to last version by Jaraalbe) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 19:42, 18 January 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (14,070 bytes) (tag) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 17:00, 29 November 2008 Jaraalbe (talk | contribs) m (14,063 bytes) (reclassify) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:52, 25 September 2008 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (14,050 bytes) (Moved a comment to a note.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:16, 25 September 2008 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) m (13,559 bytes) (Changed a word.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:12, 25 September 2008 12.76.7.218 (talk) (13,557 bytes) (Added a paragraph; amplified footnotes.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 04:29, 23 September 2008 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (11,128 bytes) (Added footnotes, etc.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 10:58, 18 September 2008 Lightbot (talk | contribs) (10,015 bytes) (Units/dates/other) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 22:37, 31 August 2008 WVhybrid (talk | contribs) m (10,049 bytes) (dab link repair) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 21:54, 31 August 2008 WVhybrid (talk | contribs) (10,053 bytes) (→Thought: dab link fix) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 05:43, 28 July 2008 Roltz (talk | contribs) (10,024 bytes) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 10:39, 3 July 2008 BOTarate (talk | contribs) m (9,893 bytes) (robot Adding: ca:Joan XI de Constantinoble Modifying: el:Ιωάννης ΙΑ΄ Βέκκος) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 18:00, 12 May 2008 John Carter (talk | contribs) (9,858 bytes) (no footnotes) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 15:36, 9 February 2008 Grk1011 (talk | contribs) (9,842 bytes) (cat fix) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:37, 16 December 2007 Jaraalbe (talk | contribs) (9,831 bytes) (date category) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 18:10, 6 October 2007 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (9,780 bytes) (Corrected a date.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 15:29, 5 September 2007 RussBot (talk | contribs) m (9,726 bytes) (Robot: moving pages out of redirected category) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 19:38, 1 August 2007 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (9,726 bytes) (Added 2 links) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 19:32, 1 August 2007 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (9,712 bytes) (Added links, etc.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 20:31, 31 July 2007 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (9,715 bytes) (Added two categories.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 17:17, 15 July 2007 84.1.187.33 (talk) (9,649 bytes) (+hu) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 01:09, 23 May 2007 Gerakibot (talk | contribs) m (9,623 bytes) (robot Adding: el:Ιωάννης ΙΑ΄ Βέκος) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 09:29, 12 May 2007 Clicketyclack (talk | contribs) (9,583 bytes) (Fixing links to disambiguation pages using AWB) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 12:08, 24 March 2007 Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs) m (Typo fixing, Typos fixed: refering → referring, using AWB) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 22:51, 9 March 2007 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) m (Fixed the spelling of a Latin word.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 22:41, 9 March 2007 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (Deleted the word "Ecumenical," for two reasons. First, it is redundant. Secondly, it is a term which Bekkos, in his writings, does not apply to himself.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:22, 26 February 2007 InfernoXV (talk | contribs) m (moved Ecumenical Patriarch John XI of Constantinople to Patriarch John XI of Constantinople over redirect: usual english name) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 20:17, 5 February 2007 Hectorian (talk | contribs) m (moved Patriarch John XI of Constantinople to Ecumenical Patriarch John XI of Constantinople) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 20:15, 5 February 2007 Hectorian (talk | contribs) m (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 19:14, 20 January 2007 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) m (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 23:22, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) m (Added a link) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:59, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (Added Greek text, and a Latin word with a link.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 11:46, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (Added the division "Studies"; removed editor's name) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 10:16, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) m (→Editions) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 09:59, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (I have changed what was a stub article to a complete article.) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 00:14, 1 December 2006 Qurqa (talk | contribs) m (+fr) (undo)
    * (cur | prev) 02:37, 14 November 2006 200.103.120.71 (talk) (minor change: sorting Categories under 'John XI') (undo)
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #123 on: May 20, 2010, 11:29:24 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

I thought as much.

Look at the bottom of the page of the history of this article and you will see it was written by <surprise!> Gilbert. 

I see where he revised it but I don't see that he wrote it...

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: May 20, 2010, 11:34:31 AM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that there was a Second Person of the Trinity prior to Jesus's birth?

Mary
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #125 on: May 20, 2010, 11:35:25 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

I thought as much.

Look at the bottom of the page of the history of this article and you will see it was written by <surprise!> Gilbert. 

I see where he revised it but I don't see that he wrote it...

M.

* (cur | prev) 09:59, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (I have changed what was a stub article to a complete article.) (undo)

emphasis mine
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: May 20, 2010, 11:37:53 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

I thought as much.

Look at the bottom of the page of the history of this article and you will see it was written by <surprise!> Gilbert. 

I see where he revised it but I don't see that he wrote it...

M.

Put you glasses on, Mary, and read the third line from the bottom

* (cur | prev) 09:59, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (I have changed what was a stub article to a complete article.) (undo)

If you wish to discover the tiny fragments in the article which are not his, click on "Undo" and see what remains.   However DO NOT SAVE this revision or you'll wipe out all his work!
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #127 on: May 20, 2010, 11:40:00 AM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that there was a Second Person of the Trinity prior to Jesus's birth?

Mary

Prior to the Incarnation there was only a Binity, but we don't talk about it very much.   laugh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #128 on: May 20, 2010, 11:41:31 AM »

or you can simply believe what you prefer to believe.

Likewise....dear. Wink

The final years of Michael VIII’s reign were entirely taken up with defending his empire against the threat posed by the Western king Charles of Anjou, and, in his anxiety to meet this threat, Michael enforced a "reign of terror" against opponents of union; but there is no convincing evidence that John Bekkos ever actively took part in or supported acts of violent persecution.[5]

Although earlier in his patriarchate Bekkos had promised not to reply to the pamphlets that were being circulated against the ecclesiastical union, by the latter years of Michael's reign he had changed his mind about this, and began "holding numerous synods, calling all and sundry, and dug up books and published many others,"[6] defending the union on theological grounds, arguing the compatibility of the Latin doctrine with Greek patristic tradition. The effect of this was further to alienate most of the Greek clergy against him; it was this publishing activity that later served as the explicit grounds for the charges that were laid against him.[7]

I thought as much.

Look at the bottom of the page of the history of this article and you will see it was written by <surprise!> Gilbert. 

I see where he revised it but I don't see that he wrote it...

M.

* (cur | prev) 09:59, 15 December 2006 PLGilbert (talk | contribs) (I have changed what was a stub article to a complete article.) (undo)

emphasis mine

Ok...thank you!!
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #129 on: May 20, 2010, 11:42:52 AM »

Bump

This was a very serious question, Father. 

Now I presume that your quip here means "Yes"

Does Orthodoxy teach that there was a Second Person of the Trinity prior to Jesus's birth?

Mary

Prior to the Incarnation there was only a Binity, but we don't talk about it very much.   laugh
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #130 on: May 20, 2010, 11:44:12 AM »

Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?

Mary
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: May 20, 2010, 12:02:28 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.
Logged
christianos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Greek Catholic Archeparchy of Przemyśl–Warsaw
Posts: 30


St Sharbel pray for us


« Reply #132 on: May 20, 2010, 12:14:13 PM »

If I can add something about Filioque Smiley

It would be a heresy If in latin Creed was written "ab Patre et ab Filio procedit". However, we know that there is different expression "Ab Patre Fiolioque procedit".  Latin "quo" means here the same like english "and" but introduces the semantic asymmetry, which nor English, neither Greek cannot express, as an example of this distinction I'll give well-known Latin quotation "Senatus populusque Romanus" (The Senate and the People of Rome).

I tried to find one sentence written by Aleksandar Shmeman in his book "Литургия и живот" but I need more time.
He wrote that the Holy Spirit is the personal relationship of love of the Father and the Son. As soon as I find this passage immediately I will write it here.
Such statement as far I know is close to St. Augustine was used even by St. Gregory Palamas.
Logged

Господи Ісусе Христе, Сину Божий, помилуй мене грішного.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: May 20, 2010, 12:21:48 PM »


I tried to find one sentence written by Aleksandar Shmeman in his book "Литургия и живот" but I need more time.
He wrote that the Holy Spirit is the personal relationship of love of the Father and the Son. As soon as I find this passage immediately I will write it here.
Such statement as far I know is close to St. Augustine was used even by St. Gregory Palamas.

Dear Christianos,

It would be interesting to see Schmemann's statement since this, as far as I know, has always been presented by the Orthodox as an aberrant Roman Catholic understanding of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #134 on: May 20, 2010, 12:31:58 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
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: 37,831



« Reply #135 on: May 20, 2010, 12:35:54 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #136 on: May 20, 2010, 12:52:56 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.

Mary
Logged

christianos
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Greek Catholic Archeparchy of Przemyśl–Warsaw
Posts: 30


St Sharbel pray for us


« Reply #137 on: May 20, 2010, 01:34:16 PM »

Quote
Dear Christianos,

It would be interesting to see Schmemann's statement since this, as far as I know, has always been presented by the Orthodox as an aberrant Roman Catholic understanding of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity.

Here you are:


the quality is not good but I took the picture by my camera.

Quote
Този вечен дар на Отца за Цина, е самият Божи Дух- Дух на любов, на съвършенство, на красота, на цялата неизчерпаена дълвина на Божията същност.

I don't know do I have to translate all of it, but the most iportant sentense means in english "more and less" like that:
"This eternal gift of Father to the Sin is Holy Spirit by himself, Spirit of Love, of Perfection of Beauty, of endless depth of God's being (essence)."

P.S. if someone can correct this translation I'd be grateful Smiley
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 01:35:30 PM by christianos » Logged

Господи Ісусе Христе, Сину Божий, помилуй мене грішного.
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: 37,831



« Reply #138 on: May 20, 2010, 01:38:05 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.
and why it is heresy.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 01:38:26 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #139 on: May 20, 2010, 01:42:39 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.
and why it is heresy.

Apparently not because Orthodoxy teaches the same thing without using filioque to do so.

M.
Logged

tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #140 on: May 20, 2010, 04:33:10 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #141 on: May 20, 2010, 04:47:26 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.

Mary
Logged

tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #142 on: May 20, 2010, 05:07:44 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.

Mary

Sometimes I don't explain things as well as I would like to.  Okay, I'll simplify.  How does the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, rather than Father alone?
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 05:24:36 PM by tuesdayschild » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: May 20, 2010, 05:29:19 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.

Mary

Sometimes I don't explain things as well as I would like to.  Okay, I'll simplify.  How does the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, rather than Father alone?

From the Son the Spirit is spirated eternally as from the essence, and then through the hypostasis in time. 

The Spirit originates only from the Father who is the singular source.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #144 on: May 20, 2010, 11:54:37 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.

Mary

Sometimes I don't explain things as well as I would like to.  Okay, I'll simplify.  How does the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, rather than Father alone?

From the Son the Spirit is spirated eternally as from the essence, and then through the hypostasis in time.  

The Spirit originates only from the Father who is the singular source.


Explain the difference between spiration and origination.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2010, 11:55:06 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #145 on: May 21, 2010, 12:05:30 AM »


From the Son the Spirit is spirated eternally as from the essence, and then through the hypostasis in time.  

The Spirit originates only from the Father who is the singular source.


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

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


In my opinion the Western world has been long stricken with the madness against which Saint Gregory cautions.

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

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

and also from Saint John of Damascus:

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


The Orthodox know only within the limits of Scripture and Tradition. Both of these affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. This is what we know with crystal clear clarity.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:07:06 AM by Irish Hermit » 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: 37,831



« Reply #146 on: May 21, 2010, 12:21:03 AM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.
and why it is heresy.

Apparently not because Orthodoxy teaches the same thing without using filioque to do so.

M.
No, we do not, no matter how much you, the Vatican, Bishop Kallistos or the Phanar may dream otherwise.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 12:21:56 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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: 37,831



« Reply #147 on: May 21, 2010, 12:25:42 AM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.
It most certainly is not.  But it most certainly is the Vatican's teaching.
Logged

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

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #148 on: May 21, 2010, 05:42:28 AM »

Quote
Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.

So... what's the problem with that? Smiley
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #149 on: May 21, 2010, 08:25:07 AM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.

Mary

Sometimes I don't explain things as well as I would like to.  Okay, I'll simplify.  How does the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, rather than Father alone?

From the Son the Spirit is spirated eternally as from the essence, and then through the hypostasis in time.  

The Spirit originates only from the Father who is the singular source.


Explain the difference between spiration and origination.

Explain one in essence.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 08:28:47 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #150 on: May 21, 2010, 10:11:51 AM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.

Mary

Sometimes I don't explain things as well as I would like to.  Okay, I'll simplify.  How does the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, rather than Father alone?

From the Son the Spirit is spirated eternally as from the essence, and then through the hypostasis in time.  

The Spirit originates only from the Father who is the singular source.


Explain the difference between spiration and origination.

Explain one in essence.

"Consubstantial" meaning "of one substance."

Your turn.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #151 on: May 21, 2010, 06:46:07 PM »

Quote
Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.

So... what's the problem with that? Smiley
The problem with that is that you cannot defend your position as being the true Church by only appealing to the Fathers who were highly hellenized. You end up in a circular argument.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #152 on: May 21, 2010, 07:35:37 PM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant 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 #153 on: May 21, 2010, 07:44:25 PM »

Thomas Ross's discussion of the filioque has never made sense to me.  He clearly does not grasp Catholic teaching and so it is impossible to offer a genuine commentary on his essay based upon Catholic teaching concerning the filioque. 

How about commentary on his point (about 3/4 down the page) viz-a-viz the historical language of eternal double-procession in RC dogmatic statements?

At any rate Dr. Gilbert does apparently grasp Catholic teaching and the history of the teaching and he definitely is Orthodox, so that is a good thing to witness in this world of common misunderstandings.

I don't know how seriously I can take the conclusions of a man who makes such blatantly false statements as, "It was on account of people like him, who preferred the Turban to the Tiara, that the Greek nation was shortly afterwards submerged in darkness and slavery for four hundred years."  When examining the man's writings, an unsupportable and patently untrue statement like that is akin to finding self-inflicted gangrene in a medical examination: there is a problem, and it is going to effect everything around it.

Thomas Ross deals in literal black and white and does not account for meaning, much the same way Father Ambrose insists on it, when speaking of original sin. 

So you see as long as you are not willing to accept Catholics when they explain meaning then you control the terms of the discussion and there's no dialogue.  You simply rear up and inform us of what we have taught for 2000 years...or not.  It's a nice position to be in.  Ask any of the British colonies who wrote their early histories and how the indigenes fared in the telling....

Also Dr. Gilbert is an historian and I expect he'd not make those kinds of statements had he not had some experience with texts to have allowed him to say what he said.  He is certainly not anti-Orthodox.   But he does not back off an historical truth if he finds one simply because it is inconvenient.

I think he makes a good point. If the Latins have really just meant all along that the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father and the Son, then why have they taught that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son? Non-ontological sending or missioning would appear to not be a matter of eternity, and only the ontological procession could be.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #154 on: May 21, 2010, 07:46:37 PM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #155 on: May 21, 2010, 07:49:31 PM »

I just wanted to voice a slight objection to how the Roman Catholics who seem to hold the Mother of God in such high esteem....refer to her on such a familiar basis as simply "Mary".  I've heard this a number of times and it offends me.

Just a couple of weeks ago I was at a function where a Byzantine Catholic priest stood up for the closing prayer and then gave a few words.  His constant referral to "Maria" just irritated me.  Maria, who?  Fraulein Maria?

I must take exception to this. I don't think there is any disrespect in referring to the Blessed Mother as "Mary." It is a holy name, made sacred by the bearer of it.


Yes...well....I've also met too many Roman Catholics named "Jesus"...which I also find disrespectful.



What about Josh? Jesus is simply one particular rendering of a Greek rendering of the original. Joshua is an English rendering of Yehoshua.
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 #156 on: May 21, 2010, 07:55:50 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that there was a Second Person of the Trinity prior to Jesus's birth?

Mary

Of course. Even the Arians would have said that there was a second person of the Triad before Jesus' birth.
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 #157 on: May 21, 2010, 07:57:02 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that there was a Second Person of the Trinity prior to Jesus's birth?

Mary

Prior to the Incarnation there was only a Binity, but we don't talk about it very much.   laugh

Erm....  Huh
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 #158 on: May 21, 2010, 07:57:48 PM »

Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?

Mary

Of course. The Logos is eternally begotten of the Father.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,973


black metal cat


« Reply #159 on: May 21, 2010, 07:57:55 PM »

Quote
Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.

So... what's the problem with that? Smiley
The problem with that is that you cannot defend your position as being the true Church by only appealing to the Fathers who were highly hellenized. You end up in a circular argument.

All arguments are circular arguments, if you follow them far enough... Wink But as for selectively quoting Fathers, in Orthodoxy they use a nebulous "mind of the Fathers" concept. It's a terribly vague and arbitrary method, but then what is the alternative? A terribly tyrannical and arbitrary Papal system? A terribly unworkable and unusable formula of St. Vincent of Lerins? I don't like the way the Orthodox do it, but then the problem reminds me of that phrase by Winston Churchill... it's the worst way of doing it, except for all the others.
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #160 on: May 21, 2010, 07:58:55 PM »

it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

They are one and the same. The only difference is that Jesus Christ was not human beforehand.
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 #161 on: May 21, 2010, 08:03:06 PM »

If I can add something about Filioque Smiley

It would be a heresy If in latin Creed was written "ab Patre et ab Filio procedit". However, we know that there is different expression "Ab Patre Fiolioque procedit".  Latin "quo" means here the same like english "and" but introduces the semantic asymmetry, which nor English, neither Greek cannot express, as an example of this distinction I'll give well-known Latin quotation "Senatus populusque Romanus" (The Senate and the People of Rome).

I tried to find one sentence written by Aleksandar Shmeman in his book "Литургия и живот" but I need more time.
He wrote that the Holy Spirit is the personal relationship of love of the Father and the Son. As soon as I find this passage immediately I will write it here.
Such statement as far I know is close to St. Augustine was used even by St. Gregory Palamas.

I don't know where this "ab Patre" is coming from. The Latin says "ex Patre". Anyway, what is your imagined difference between "ex Filio" and "filioque"?

Also, I would be interested to see what in the writings of Gregory Palamas you are referring to?
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 #162 on: May 21, 2010, 08:05:42 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary

The Essence is principally the Unbegotten's. He eternally begat the hypostasis of the Logos as another instance of His own essence. So it would not be appropriate to say that the essence was eternally begotten, but it would be appropriate to say that the hypostasis of the Logos was eternally begotten in the essence of the Father.
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 #163 on: May 21, 2010, 08:06:23 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.

Mary

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 #164 on: May 21, 2010, 08:08:30 PM »

Quote
Dear Christianos,

It would be interesting to see Schmemann's statement since this, as far as I know, has always been presented by the Orthodox as an aberrant Roman Catholic understanding of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity.

Here you are:


the quality is not good but I took the picture by my camera.

Quote
Този вечен дар на Отца за Цина, е самият Божи Дух- Дух на любов, на съвършенство, на красота, на цялата неизчерпаена дълвина на Божията същност.

I don't know do I have to translate all of it, but the most iportant sentense means in english "more and less" like that:
"This eternal gift of Father to the Sin is Holy Spirit by himself, Spirit of Love, of Perfection of Beauty, of endless depth of God's being (essence)."

P.S. if someone can correct this translation I'd be grateful Smiley


Which expresses John Damascene's formula that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. It doesn't really seem to support the idea that the Holy Spirit in His origin is the love between the Father and the Son. Rather it indicates that the Holy Spirit is ontologically the love of the Father which He gives to the Son as an eternal gift that He comes to possess as His own.
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 #165 on: May 21, 2010, 08:09:04 PM »


Prior to the Annunciation, do the Orthodox call the Second Person of the Trinity....'Begotten'?


What an odd question!  Are you having a hypoglycemic moment?   laugh

"...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages..."

Although you do have to tease that apart..... it was not the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, who was begottoen before all ages.  It was the Second Person of the Trinity.

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?

Mary
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.
and why it is heresy.

Apparently not because Orthodoxy teaches the same thing without using filioque to do so.

M.

What is the teaching that you are referring to?
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 #166 on: May 21, 2010, 08:10:53 PM »

Does Orthodoxy teach that the Second Person of the Trinity was begotten of the Father before all ages in his Hypostasis or in His Essence?
It would have to be in His Hypostasis, as He has no seperate Essence.

Then you inherently understand the Catholic teaching of filioque.


Please elaborate.  How is it that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (a third divine hypostatis from two divine hypostases) rather than from "one God, the Father almighty" (one divine essence), Who also begets the Son?

I have no idea because what you have displayed here has nothing to do with any Catholic teaching.

You might check on some other Christian forum, but it is certainly not Catholic.

Mary

Sometimes I don't explain things as well as I would like to.  Okay, I'll simplify.  How does the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, rather than Father alone?

From the Son the Spirit is spirated eternally as from the essence, and then through the hypostasis in time. 

The Spirit originates only from the Father who is the singular source.

M.

I've never been able to understand what this "as from" business means. Does the Holy Spirit spirate from the essence or not?
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 #167 on: May 21, 2010, 08:14:35 PM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary

If it has an inherent connotation of originating procession, that is perfectly fine. If it is open to either, then the Latins should have researched the Creed sufficiently to recognize that if they are to use procedere it must be used to be the same in meaning. If they did not, then they didn't really do their job in sufficiently analyzing statements of faith before accepting them and didn't really receive 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #168 on: May 21, 2010, 09:55:34 PM »

removed
« Last Edit: May 21, 2010, 09:56:10 PM by elijahmaria » 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: 37,831



« Reply #169 on: May 21, 2010, 10:58:19 PM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary
The Creed wasn't written in Latin. I know, that comes as a shock to you.
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
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,254



« Reply #170 on: May 21, 2010, 11:49:03 PM »

Quote
Oh, yeah, its not the Fathers for you guys, or even the Greek Fathers, but only those who explicite endorse the mondern ethnocentric EO view on any given matter.

So... what's the problem with that? Smiley
The problem with that is that you cannot defend your position as being the true Church by only appealing to the Fathers who were highly hellenized. You end up in a circular argument.

All arguments are circular arguments, if you follow them far enough... Wink But as for selectively quoting Fathers, in Orthodoxy they use a nebulous "mind of the Fathers" concept. It's a terribly vague and arbitrary method, but then what is the alternative? A terribly tyrannical and arbitrary Papal system? A terribly unworkable and unusable formula of St. Vincent of Lerins? I don't like the way the Orthodox do it, but then the problem reminds me of that phrase by Winston Churchill... it's the worst way of doing it, except for all the others.

I rather like our consensus patrum. Smiley And St. Vincent of Lérins came up with a pretty good formula, IMHO. Wink

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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #171 on: May 22, 2010, 01:30:14 AM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary
You're assuming that East and West were actually able to communicate with each other during the time the filioque rose to prominence?
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 01:30:26 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #172 on: May 22, 2010, 03:36:56 AM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary
The Creed wasn't written in Latin. I know, that comes as a shock to you.
Which is why the original version only included the Eastern approach to theology. But it did not condemn the Latin approach either. I always find it funny that EOs reject the filioque just because the Greek form of the creed does not contain it. How very protestant.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #173 on: May 22, 2010, 03:46:19 AM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary
The Creed wasn't written in Latin. I know, that comes as a shock to you.
Which is why the original version only included the Eastern approach to theology. But it did not condemn the Latin approach either. I always find it funny that EOs reject the filioque just because the Greek form of the creed does not contain it. How very protestant.

Catholics say that the two Ecumenical Councils which constructed the Creed were convened by the Pope, run by the legates of the Pope, and finally ratified by the Pope.   How on earth would that make the Pope a Protestant?!   Huh
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #174 on: May 22, 2010, 08:42:41 AM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary
The Creed wasn't written in Latin. I know, that comes as a shock to you.
Which is why the original version only included the Eastern approach to theology. But it did not condemn the Latin approach either. I always find it funny that EOs reject the filioque just because the Greek form of the creed does not contain it. How very protestant.

Yes.  And many do not know the documentary history and still think that Latins could not talk to Greeks or that Augustine did not know the Cappadocian fathers through letters and could not have read their works, etc.  So it is best to leave certain assertions alone for charity's sake.

M.
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #175 on: May 22, 2010, 10:52:16 AM »

Well the Latin Church used a different word in the Creed in Latin and that didn't seem to bother for centuries, and I expect people knew it was different then as they do now.

I would actually say that the proper meaning of a creed is what the authors of it meant by the language they used to write it, not what meaning later readers of it can interpret into it. And such interpretation is illegitimate and breaks doctrinal continuity if it is not the same meaning as the authors meant by it. Thus, using procedere to mean anything other than ἐκπόρευσις is to introduce a deviant creed.

Should have made note of that immediately, rather than a thousand years later.  It was VERY clear from the beginning that the Latin did not mean at all precisely the same thing as the Greek.  The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.  So if that had been a problem, it should have been noted then, not now.

Mary
The Creed wasn't written in Latin. I know, that comes as a shock to you.
Which is why the original version only included the Eastern approach to theology. But it did not condemn the Latin approach either.
This is an interesting point.

When you say that "it did not condemn the Latin approach", to which "it" are you referring? A council? A document?

Are you saying that a council or document addressed the filioque issue, decided not to include the filioque, but did not condemn the filioque?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #176 on: May 22, 2010, 11:04:22 AM »
</