OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 07:51:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Do Orthodox and Catholics Worship the Same Trinity?  (Read 19734 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #180 on: May 22, 2010, 11:17:05 AM »

The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.

That is an interesting assertion.  Proof?

I hope you realize I was not brushing you off...I will keep an active eye out for some verification somewhere...It is something that I have come to presume as part of my learning, and factor into my base knowledge, so I don't spend huge amounts of time thinking about defending it.  That's why I laugh at myself when you ask for proof!!

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #181 on: May 22, 2010, 11:18:56 AM »

The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.

That is an interesting assertion.  Proof?

LOL...yea...old lecture notes...

Never mind.  If I find something in my travels I'll post it.  If not just write it off as the ravings of a nutcase Catholic  Smiley

Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof....we have the pope.

You are exceptionally rude.

Mary
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #182 on: May 22, 2010, 02:58:47 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.
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
Just to add: the Greek form is the original form, the standard against which all Creeds are measured.  Not sure how that is protestant.

Looking at the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, lots of things are stuck into the Latin translation which would reappear when the Vatican tried making the Councils as statements of Ultramontanism.
Its protestant because its the same nonsense as sola scriptura. Except for you its, the Nicene Creed alone. You behave as if just because the filioque is not spelled out in the creed it must be false. Protestants will argue that just because veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not spelled out in the scriptures, it must not be part of the Christian faith. Same nonsensem different church.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #183 on: May 22, 2010, 03:00:38 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.
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?
I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.
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 #184 on: May 22, 2010, 03:12:05 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #185 on: May 22, 2010, 03:39:42 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.
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 #186 on: May 22, 2010, 03:47:36 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Do you have any evidence that when he made such a big show of putting up the Creed without the filioque that he was making merely an editing statement and not a theological one <yawn>
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #187 on: May 22, 2010, 03:58:04 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Do you have any evidence that when he made such a big show of putting up the Creed without the filioque that he was making merely an editing statement and not a theological one <yawn>

Yes.  He did not condemn or forbid the teaching.  He tried to paper over the situation, by forbidding its use in the Creed, and it did not work.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 03:59:58 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,234



« Reply #188 on: May 22, 2010, 04:36:20 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Do you have any evidence that when he made such a big show of putting up the Creed without the filioque that he was making merely an editing statement and not a theological one <yawn>

Yes.  He did not condemn or forbid the teaching.  He tried to paper over the situation, by forbidding its use in the Creed, and it did not work.
Did he err in forbidding its use in the Creed? If so, how was he in error for doing so?

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,585



« Reply #189 on: May 22, 2010, 04:54:01 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque.
So yet again you argue that we cannot take the pope at his word, and thus again demonstrate the uselessness of "infallibility."
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: 37,585



« Reply #190 on: May 22, 2010, 05:01:38 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.
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
Just to add: the Greek form is the original form, the standard against which all Creeds are measured.  Not sure how that is protestant.

Looking at the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, lots of things are stuck into the Latin translation which would reappear when the Vatican tried making the Councils as statements of Ultramontanism.
Its protestant because its the same nonsense as sola scriptura. Except for you its, the Nicene Creed alone. You behave as if just because the filioque is not spelled out in the creed it must be false.

No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.

And I note how selective we are in sola scriptura: when we point out that Matthew 16 applies to all the Apostles and bishops-as indeed St. Matthew explicitely states conferred the power of the Keys on all the Apostles, we are told "No! No! It's not in scripture! The pronound is singular! It's only Peter! It's only the Pope!"


Quote
Protestants will argue that just because veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not spelled out in the scriptures, it must not be part of the Christian faith. Same nonsensem different church.

Take it up with your Protestant siblings.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #191 on: May 22, 2010, 05:12:04 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque.
So yet again you argue that we cannot take the pope at his word, and thus again demonstrate the uselessness of "infallibility."
I don't see how this has anything to do with Papal Infallibility. Silly argument.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #192 on: May 22, 2010, 05:13:33 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Do you have any evidence that when he made such a big show of putting up the Creed without the filioque that he was making merely an editing statement and not a theological one <yawn>
The fact that the filioque was part of the western theological paradigm, a paradigm through which the Patriarch of the west would have seen theology. Do you have any evidence to the contrary. <double yawn>
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #193 on: May 22, 2010, 05:14:20 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Do you have any evidence that when he made such a big show of putting up the Creed without the filioque that he was making merely an editing statement and not a theological one <yawn>

Yes.  He did not condemn or forbid the teaching.  He tried to paper over the situation, by forbidding its use in the Creed, and it did not work.
Did he err in forbidding its use in the Creed? If so, how was he in error for doing so?

In Christ,
Andrew
This is a pastoral question. Its impossible to determine whether or not he errored.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #194 on: May 22, 2010, 05:18:22 PM »


No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.

No, it does not contradict the Creed. The Creed just didn't originally mention it. So once again, you demonstrate your protestant approach to the Creed.
And I note how selective we are in sola scriptura: when we point out that Matthew 16 applies to all the Apostles and bishops-as indeed St. Matthew explicitely states conferred the power of the Keys on all the Apostles, we are told "No! No! It's not in scripture! The pronound is singular! It's only Peter! It's only the Pope!"

I don't know what this has to do with anything. So its just another stupid argument. But what's your point?


Take it up with your Protestant siblings.

In this thread you have demonstrated that you have so much in common with them.
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: 37,585



« Reply #195 on: May 22, 2010, 05:22:10 PM »


No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.

No, it does not contradict the Creed. The Creed just didn't originally mention it.

It didn't mention it because 1) Its heretical, and 2) the Fathers aren't heretics.


Quote
So once again, you demonstrate your protestant approach to the Creed.

No, Orthodox, you know "right Faith" "neither add nor subtract," etc.


Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #196 on: May 22, 2010, 05:55:51 PM »




It didn't mention it because 1) Its heretical, and 2) the Fathers aren't heretics.
Nope. Keep swinging.


No, Orthodox, you know "right Faith" "neither add nor subtract," etc.




That's Why Catholics are orthodox and modern Eastern Orthodox are not. Just return to your origins of not being an ethnocentric Hellenized church.

True Eastern Orthodoxy is amazing and is much greater than your fundamentalist approach.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2010, 05:58:13 PM by Papist » 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 #197 on: May 22, 2010, 06:23:44 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.
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.

It's essentially the same reasoning behind condemning "in two natures", because in the official synodical faith of the Church, such language is technically heterodox. That you did not properly analyze the meaning of the Creed intended by its authors is not our fault, it's yours.
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 #198 on: May 22, 2010, 06:26:18 PM »

The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.

That is an interesting assertion.  Proof?

LOL...yea...old lecture notes...

Never mind.  If I find something in my travels I'll post it.  If not just write it off as the ravings of a nutcase Catholic  Smiley

Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof....we have the pope.

You are exceptionally rude.

Mary

LOL  Tongue
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 #199 on: May 22, 2010, 06:28:19 PM »

The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.

That is an interesting assertion.  Proof?

LOL...yea...old lecture notes...

Never mind.  If I find something in my travels I'll post it.  If not just write it off as the ravings of a nutcase Catholic  Smiley

Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof....we have the pope.

You are exceptionally rude.

Mary

LOL  Tongue

 laugh...well...he is.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #200 on: May 22, 2010, 06:30:39 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.
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
Just to add: the Greek form is the original form, the standard against which all Creeds are measured.  Not sure how that is protestant.

Looking at the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, lots of things are stuck into the Latin translation which would reappear when the Vatican tried making the Councils as statements of Ultramontanism.
Its protestant because its the same nonsense as sola scriptura. Except for you its, the Nicene Creed alone. You behave as if just because the filioque is not spelled out in the creed it must be false. Protestants will argue that just because veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not spelled out in the scriptures, it must not be part of the Christian faith. Same nonsensem different church.

No, actually, that's not the reasoning that was being used, at least not when I first made the comment. The reasoning, rather, is that if we say that "the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" with "proceeds" having the same meaning as the original Greek "ἐκπορεύεσθαι", in that context it is clearly heterodox; and "proceeds" must be understood to mean the same thing as the original Greek, otherwise it is not conveying the same substance of faith.
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 #201 on: May 22, 2010, 06:31:13 PM »

The Latin word was chosen precisely because it had the dual meaning of originating and a non-originating procession.

That is an interesting assertion.  Proof?

LOL...yea...old lecture notes...

Never mind.  If I find something in my travels I'll post it.  If not just write it off as the ravings of a nutcase Catholic  Smiley

Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof....we have the pope.

You are exceptionally rude.

Mary

LOL  Tongue

 laugh...well...he is.

 Wink
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 #202 on: May 22, 2010, 06:33:11 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.
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?
I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.

You are right about that. However, the filioque none the less cannot be interpreted as orthodox in the original meaning of the Creed. Such a condemnation would be more implicit than explicit.
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 #203 on: May 22, 2010, 06:35:44 PM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

It is possible to realize that a dual procession with respect to the non-ontological meaning of procedere is orthodox, while dual procession cannot be in the Creed because the meaning of the Creed is ontological. That may very well be what Pope Leo III was getting at.
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 #204 on: May 22, 2010, 06:39:11 PM »

The Creed just didn't originally mention it.

The Creed conveys a monarchy of the Father with respect to the ontological spiration of the Holy Spirit. To say that the ontological spiration is also from the Son is destroy the monarchy 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #205 on: May 22, 2010, 07:51:56 PM »

The Creed just didn't originally mention it.

The Creed conveys a monarchy of the Father with respect to the ontological spiration of the Holy Spirit. To say that the ontological spiration is also from the Son is destroy the monarchy of the Father.

That is why I do not worry about not professing filioque as an eastern Catholic.  It does not need to be made explicit in the Creed to be true.

What DOES bother me is that the Joint Consultation recommends that filioque must be removed from the western Creed and NOT taught at all...to be removed from catechesis.

And I say never-mind to that for it is a truth and it should be taught, because the Creed without it is limiting and confusing....to non-Greeks... Smiley

At any rate I do not see it as heresy, but by the time it was finally and firmly embedded in the western Creed we were long past the point of speaking politely to one another in political terms at very least.

M.
Logged

PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #206 on: May 22, 2010, 11:21:29 PM »

No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.
How does the filioque contradict the Creed?  Whereas the original wording of the Creed does not include the word filioque, which is reason enough in itself to reject its insertion into later translations of the Creed, neither does the Creed specifically state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #207 on: May 22, 2010, 11:26:30 PM »

The Creed just didn't originally mention it.

The Creed conveys a monarchy of the Father with respect to the ontological spiration of the Holy Spirit. To say that the ontological spiration is also from the Son is destroy the monarchy of the Father.
But the Creed conveys that ONLY if you read that into the Creed.  The Creed's wording itself says nothing about any monarchy of the Father in relation to the Son and the Holy Spirit.  We understand this to be what St. Basil meant when he penned the theology that shaped the Creed's statements on the Holy Spirit, but this theology is not made readily visible in the text of the Creed itself.
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: 37,585



« Reply #208 on: May 22, 2010, 11:28:34 PM »

No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.
How does the filioque contradict the Creed?  Whereas the original wording of the Creed does not include the word filioque, which is reason enough in itself to reject its insertion into later translations of the Creed, neither does the Creed specifically state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The Vatican itself forbids the Greek to have the filioque, as it results in theology even it rejects as heretical.
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: 37,585



« Reply #209 on: May 22, 2010, 11:32:15 PM »

The Creed just didn't originally mention it.

The Creed conveys a monarchy of the Father with respect to the ontological spiration of the Holy Spirit. To say that the ontological spiration is also from the Son is destroy the monarchy of the Father.

That is why I do not worry about not professing filioque as an eastern Catholic.  It does not need to be made explicit in the Creed to be true.

What DOES bother me is that the Joint Consultation recommends that filioque must be removed from the western Creed and NOT taught at all...to be removed from catechesis.

And I say never-mind to that for it is a truth and it should be taught, because the Creed without it is limiting and confusing....to non-Greeks... Smiley

The Slavs I know aren't confused (your problem), and us Semites are quite clear on it too. So are the Latin Romanians.

Quote
At any rate I do not see it as heresy,

I'm sure you don't.  But St. Photios, whom your church allegedly venerates, said, along with the Fathers, otherwise.


Quote
but by the time it was finally and firmly embedded in the western Creed we were long past the point of speaking politely to one another in political terms at very least.
You mean when the Frankish emperor forced the Pope of Rome to accept it?
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #210 on: May 23, 2010, 12:46:25 AM »

No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.
How does the filioque contradict the Creed?  Whereas the original wording of the Creed does not include the word filioque, which is reason enough in itself to reject its insertion into later translations of the Creed, neither does the Creed specifically state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The Vatican itself forbids the Greek to have the filioque, as it results in theology even it rejects as heretical.
But that's merely circumstantial evidence which, in this case, doesn't really prove your point.  Need I also mention how this is an irrelevant appeal to authority and an attribution of motive that begs the question?  How does the filioque contradict the text of the Creed itself?  That's what I want to know.  I want to see evidence from a textual analysis--doesn't have to be complicated--of the Creed itself.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 12:48:42 AM by PeterTheAleut » 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: 37,585



« Reply #211 on: May 23, 2010, 01:41:53 AM »

No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.
How does the filioque contradict the Creed?  Whereas the original wording of the Creed does not include the word filioque, which is reason enough in itself to reject its insertion into later translations of the Creed, neither does the Creed specifically state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The Vatican itself forbids the Greek to have the filioque, as it results in theology even it rejects as heretical.
But that's merely circumstantial evidence which, in this case, doesn't really prove your point.  Need I also mention how this is an irrelevant appeal to authority and an attribution of motive that begs the question?  How does the filioque contradict the text of the Creed itself?  That's what I want to know.  I want to see evidence from a textual analysis--doesn't have to be complicated--of the Creed itself.

Stick "kai huios" in and it says that hypostasis of the Spirit originates in the Son, the double procession problem that the Vatican's council (Lyons was it?) muddled even further.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #212 on: May 23, 2010, 02:04:47 AM »

No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.
How does the filioque contradict the Creed?  Whereas the original wording of the Creed does not include the word filioque, which is reason enough in itself to reject its insertion into later translations of the Creed, neither does the Creed specifically state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.

Here is something from the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848   ~ "A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns""
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

It may be tangential to your specific question  but it contains basic teaching pertinent to the discussion.


5. The new doctrine, that "the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son," is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering "which proceedeth from the Father." (Symbol of Faith).

.......... i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

.......... ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

.......... iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

.......... iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

.......... v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

.......... vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, "a wolf in sheep's clothing," that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

.......... vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

.......... viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

.......... ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

.......... x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

.......... xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

.......... xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

.......... xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

.......... xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.

.......... xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says: "If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic" (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council.

6. This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of Pastors and the countenance of Princes.

Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy.

Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia.

The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and "much gain," and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,163


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #213 on: May 23, 2010, 03:34:49 AM »

No, I know that the filioque contradicts the Creed, that's why it is false.
How does the filioque contradict the Creed?  Whereas the original wording of the Creed does not include the word filioque, which is reason enough in itself to reject its insertion into later translations of the Creed, neither does the Creed specifically state that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.
The Vatican itself forbids the Greek to have the filioque, as it results in theology even it rejects as heretical.
But that's merely circumstantial evidence which, in this case, doesn't really prove your point.  Need I also mention how this is an irrelevant appeal to authority and an attribution of motive that begs the question?  How does the filioque contradict the text of the Creed itself?  That's what I want to know.  I want to see evidence from a textual analysis--doesn't have to be complicated--of the Creed itself.

Stick "kai huios" in and it says that hypostasis of the Spirit originates in the Son, the double procession problem that the Vatican's council (Lyons was it?) muddled even further.
Huh What relevance does that bear to your initial assertion that the filioque contradicts the Creed?  I give you specific hints as to how you can make your case most effective with me, yet you still wander all over the map.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #214 on: May 23, 2010, 05:31:52 AM »

We are attentive to the prayers of the of the Orthodox Church which instruct us.

At Great Vespers of Pentecost, at the psalm, "Lord, I Have Cried..." we intersperse 10 stichera, including this following after the Glory be...now and ever...:

Come, ye people, and let us worship the Godhead in three Hypostases - the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit; for the Father timelessly begat the Son, Who is equally eternal and equally enthroned, and the Holy Spirit was glorified with the Son in the Father: one power, one essence, one Godhead. And worshipping Him, let us all say: O holy God Who hast wrought all things through the Son with the coöperation of the Holy Spirit! O holy Mighty One, by Whom we have come to know the Father, and through Whom the Holy Spirit has come into the world! O holy Immortal One, comforting Spirit, Who proceedest from the Father and dost rest in the Son! O Holy Trinity, glory to Thee!
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #215 on: May 23, 2010, 05:37:11 AM »

Amen Amen...Beautiful... Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,693


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #216 on: May 23, 2010, 06:23:32 AM »

We are attentive to the prayers of the of the Orthodox Church which instruct us.

At Great Vespers of Pentecost, at the psalm, "Lord, I Have Cried..." we intersperse 10 stichera, including this following after the Glory be...now and ever...:

Come, ye people, and let us worship the Godhead in three Hypostases - the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit; for the Father timelessly begat the Son, Who is equally eternal and equally enthroned, and the Holy Spirit was glorified with the Son in the Father: one power, one essence, one Godhead. And worshipping Him, let us all say: O holy God Who hast wrought all things through the Son with the coöperation of the Holy Spirit! O holy Mighty One, by Whom we have come to know the Father, and through Whom the Holy Spirit has come into the world! O holy Immortal One, comforting Spirit, Who proceedest from the Father and dost rest in the Son! O Holy Trinity, glory to Thee!


Hear Hear! Yet again, I find myself saying "when in doubt as to what the Orthodox Church teaches, look first to the liturgical tradition!"

I cannot emphasise enough the immense importance of the treasure that is the hymnography of Vespers and Matins in proclaiming and teaching Orthodox doctrine and theology to us. Sadly, all too often, these services are not patronised anywhere nearly as much as they should. The Divine Liturgy is, of course, the pinnacle and fulfilment of the liturgical cycle, but the real theological and doctrinal "meat" which then informs the DL, is in Vespers and Matins.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #217 on: May 23, 2010, 07:28:42 AM »

We are attentive to the prayers of the of the Orthodox Church which instruct us.

At Great Vespers of Pentecost, at the psalm, "Lord, I Have Cried..." we intersperse 10 stichera, including this following after the Glory be...now and ever...:

Come, ye people, and let us worship the Godhead in three Hypostases - the Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit; for the Father timelessly begat the Son, Who is equally eternal and equally enthroned, and the Holy Spirit was glorified with the Son in the Father: one power, one essence, one Godhead. And worshipping Him, let us all say: O holy God Who hast wrought all things through the Son with the coöperation of the Holy Spirit! O holy Mighty One, by Whom we have come to know the Father, and through Whom the Holy Spirit has come into the world! O holy Immortal One, comforting Spirit, Who proceedest from the Father and dost rest in the Son! O Holy Trinity, glory to Thee!


Filioque contradicts absolutely nothing in this, and in fact explicates it and supports the theology that the Son is IN the Father EQUALLY eternal and enthroned.  There is NOTHING in filioque that indicates that the Son is "source."

Best you can do is simply keep asserting that filioque is heretical without supporting the contention with anything BUT assertion, and asserting it is contradictory without demonstrating it, and you have voila! schism without meaning....

The very language of the Creed in Latin supports filioque.  That fact is demonstrable.   

Can you show me where Latin has been condemned as heretical by the Greeks?  ...maybe the Slavs? ...any other language of the liturgy perhaps?

Mary
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #218 on: May 23, 2010, 08:05:42 AM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Oh, he was making a theological statement alright.    Do you remember his own words which he had engraved on the silver plates?

"Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei"

 "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith."
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #219 on: May 23, 2010, 08:13:18 AM »


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Oh, he was making a theological statement alright.    Do you remember his own words which he had engraved on the silver plates?

"Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei"

 "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith."


Totally out of context. 

His concern was the proper papal concern at that moment with the Greeks yelling in his ear.  His concern was unity...

He did not interdict the teaching of filioque.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #220 on: May 23, 2010, 08:28:26 AM »

[
Can you show me where Latin has been condemned as heretical by the Greeks?  ...maybe the Slavs? ...any other language of the liturgy perhaps?


And yet the 1054 Bull of Excommunication issued by the Roman Church formally accuses the Orthodox of heresy, of  "cutting off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son..."  

You'll find this is the text of the Bull below.

Since then the shelves of Catholic libraries have groaned with tomes expounding the vile heresy of the Greeks and the Filioque.

The Anathema against the Orthodox for rejecting the procession of the Spirit from the Son remained in force for 900 years!!  It was only in 1965 that Pope Paul annulled the anathema.



Full text of the Excommunication
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf


 Here are the accusations in the Excommunication by Cardinal Humbert and Frederic of Lorraine, Papal Exchequer at the time and future Pope.


 1. they [the Greeks] sell the gift of God
 2. they castrate their guests
 3. they rebaptize those already baptized in the name
     of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins
 4. they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church,
     the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world
 5. they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers
    of the sacred altar
 6. they say that the law of Moses is accursed
 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
 8. they state that leave is ensouled (animatum)
 9. they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an
     extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before
     eight days after birth
 10. they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating
     women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan
 11. they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they
     will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and
     shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio)
     of the Roman Church.

« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 08:31:00 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #221 on: May 23, 2010, 08:41:45 AM »

[
Can you show me where Latin has been condemned as heretical by the Greeks?  ...maybe the Slavs? ...any other language of the liturgy perhaps?


And yet the 1054 Bull of Excommunication issued by the Roman Church formally accuses the Orthodox of heresy, of  "cutting off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son..."  

You'll find this is the text of the Bull below.

Since then the shelves of Catholic libraries have groaned with tomes expounding the vile heresy of the Greeks and the Filioque.

The Anathema against the Orthodox for rejecting the procession of the Spirit from the Son remained in force for 900 years!!  It was only in 1965 that Pope Paul annulled the anathema.

 Cool  Off topic   Cool

At least with respect to my inquiry
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 08:42:38 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #222 on: May 23, 2010, 08:43:16 AM »

Bump


I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.


Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Oh, he was making a theological statement alright.    Do you remember his own words which he had engraved on the silver plates?

"Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei"

 "I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith."


Totally out of context. 

His concern was the proper papal concern at that moment with the Greeks yelling in his ear.  His concern was unity...

He did not interdict the teaching of filioque.

M.
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #223 on: May 23, 2010, 08:55:56 AM »

[
Can you show me where Latin has been condemned as heretical by the Greeks?  ...maybe the Slavs? ...any other language of the liturgy perhaps?


And yet the 1054 Bull of Excommunication issued by the Roman Church formally accuses the Orthodox of heresy, of  "cutting off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son..." 

You'll find this is the text of the Bull below.

Since then the shelves of Catholic libraries have groaned with tomes expounding the vile heresy of the Greeks and the Filioque.

The Anathema against the Orthodox for rejecting the procession of the Spirit from the Son remained in force for 900 years!!  It was only in 1965 that Pope Paul annulled the anathema.

 Cool  Off topic   Cool

At least with respect to my inquiry

I just find it odd that for 900 years the Vicar of Christ has punished the Orthodox by keeping them under an Anathema.  We were only released from it in 1965 by Pope Paul VI.

Even the release is odd!  Had Paul VI been informed that in 1965 we came to accept the procession of the Spirit from the Son, and hence the Anathema could be lifted?
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,693


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #224 on: May 23, 2010, 09:12:24 AM »

Quote
Totally out of context. 

His concern was the proper papal concern at that moment with the Greeks yelling in his ear.  His concern was unity...

He did not interdict the teaching of filioque.

M.

Mary, as you would know, I have followed several threads in which you have been an active participant. You have long attempted to put words into Orthodox mouths (past and present - your above post being a case in point), and to assert such things as "the IC was part of Orthodox doctrine", when this has been shown time and again, to be patently false, on verifiable historical, doctrinal, and liturgical grounds. Now you're claiming that Pope Leo did not oppose the teaching of the filioque. I am moved to say the following:

It seems that you desperately need to be convinced that Byzantine Catholicism and Orthodoxy are identical in every way. I'm afraid they're not. Roman Catholicism dressed in Orthodox trappings is still Roman Catholicism, no matter how you slice it. Byzantine Catholicism is not Orthodoxy.
Logged
Tags: filioque 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.