OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 11:54:53 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 19897 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 12,266


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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« 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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« 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: 12,266


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: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,147



« 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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« 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: 13,092


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: 12,266


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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« 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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


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: 20,093


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


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
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,179


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: 20,093


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.
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 0.174 seconds with 72 queries.