OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 24, 2014, 11:46:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   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 19250 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,633



« Reply #225 on: May 23, 2010, 11:09:45 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...
so he is the real Father of Anglicanism, where everything, including True and Orthodoxy, are sacrificed for "unity?"
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #226 on: May 23, 2010, 05:24:06 PM »

[
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?

You g'wan over der, and I'll g'wan over h'eer and I'll shoot at you and then you shoot back and the first one to trick the other one into standing up dies.  Howzzat?

Blessed Pentecost

Mary
Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #227 on: May 23, 2010, 05:32:36 PM »

[
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?

You g'wan over der, and I'll g'wan over h'eer and I'll shoot at you and then you shoot back and the first one to trick the other one into standing up dies.  Howzzat?

Well, none of that helps us to understand why we were under an "Anathema Maranatha" for 900 years.   None of that explains why Pope Paul VI removed the Anathema in 1965.

Had we made a statement in 1965 that we now accept the procession of the Spirit from the Son? 

Was this simply  a 9-century long colossal blunder by the Pope?
Logged
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,122


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #228 on: May 23, 2010, 08:04:08 PM »

Quote
You g'wan over der, and I'll g'wan over h'eer and I'll shoot at you and then you shoot back and the first one to trick the other one into standing up dies.  Howzzat?

Just as I thought. Standard elijahmaria tactic: when proven wrong, resort to nonsequiturs.  Roll Eyes
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #229 on: May 23, 2010, 11:36:38 PM »

[
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?
1. Weren't the excommunications mutual?
2. The current thinking by Catholic theologians is that when interpreted correctly, this is not an issue.
Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque (not yet at that time within the Nicene Creed)  as follows:

"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."[
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque
« Last Edit: May 23, 2010, 11:37:17 PM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #230 on: May 23, 2010, 11:39:24 PM »

[
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?

You g'wan over der, and I'll g'wan over h'eer and I'll shoot at you and then you shoot back and the first one to trick the other one into standing up dies.  Howzzat?

Well, none of that helps us to understand why we were under an "Anathema Maranatha" for 900 years.   None of that explains why Pope Paul VI removed the Anathema in 1965.

Had we made a statement in 1965 that we now accept the procession of the Spirit from the Son? 

Was this simply  a 9-century long colossal blunder by the Pope?

I would say so. The mutual excommunications and the fourth crusade and a lot of other things were colossal blunders. Absolutely true.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #231 on: May 24, 2010, 12:05:21 AM »


1. Weren't the excommunications mutual?


Yes! and No!


1)  The Western excommunication was hurled at Patriarch Michael Cerularius and all those who agreed with him.
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

2)  The retaliatory excommunication was more specific, against Cardinal Humbert.

The Catholic excommunication overreached itself since in the end it was the entire Eastern Church which agreed with the Patriarch and rejected communion with the Pope.  This may have been unexpected by Rome.

What is interesting is that at that time in history the Eastern Catholic segment of the Church was larger in its numbers of faithful than the Western segment.  But there is no recorded instance of any one of the Catholic bishops of the East taking a stand with Rome.   This, in my dimwitted estimation, would show that any notions of the need to be in communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope were unknown in the Church at that time.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #232 on: May 24, 2010, 12:10:41 AM »

would show that any notions of the need to be in communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope were unknown in the Church at that time.

Or would show that no one in the East held such a notion, while it could be argued to have been present somewhat in the West.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #233 on: May 24, 2010, 12:37:17 AM »


1. Weren't the excommunications mutual?


Yes! and No!


1)  The Western excommunication was hurled at Patriarch Michael Cerularius and all those who agreed with him.
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

2)  The retaliatory excommunication was more specific, against Cardinal Humbert.

The Catholic excommunication overreached itself since in the end it was the entire Eastern Church which agreed with the Patriarch and rejected communion with the Pope.  This may have been unexpected by Rome.

What is interesting is that at that time in history the Eastern Catholic segment of the Church was larger in its numbers of faithful than the Western segment.  But there is no recorded instance of any one of the Catholic bishops of the East taking a stand with Rome.   This, in my dimwitted estimation, would show that any notions of the need to be in communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope were unknown in the Church at that time.
At any rate, it was another one of those  colossal blunders. 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 12:38:05 AM by stanley123 » Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,080


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #234 on: May 24, 2010, 02:28:21 AM »


Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque (not yet at that time within the Nicene Creed)  as follows:

"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."
So, St. Maximus wrote this at a time when the filioque had not yet been added to the Western Nicene Creed? I wonder how he would have responded to the actual alteration of the Creed?
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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,633



« Reply #235 on: May 24, 2010, 12:05:15 PM »


Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque (not yet at that time within the Nicene Creed)  as follows:

"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."
So, St. Maximus wrote this at a time when the filioque had not yet been added to the Western Nicene Creed? I wonder how he would have responded to the actual alteration of the Creed?
Not good: he told the Latins to clean up their language, although he acknowledged the problems in doing so.  The Vatican focusses on the latter acknowledgement, ignore the former warning, and twist it into an endorsement.  This part of the letter doesn't get quoted so much by them, as above.

Some other things on this:
"Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.'"

In the quotation above St. Maximos is reproducing the accusation of some of the members of the Byzantine Church against the Romans, but in the next portion of the letter he explains that the Romans do not believe that the "ἐκπορεύσθαι" of the Spirit is from or through the Son, for as he explains:  

"With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (αἰτίαν) of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (αἰτίαν) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting (γέννησιν) and the other by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) – but that they have manifested the progression (προϊέναι) through Him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence (οὐσίας)."

Sadly, most Westerners fail to grasp the true meaning of St. Maximos' position.

The Latins fail to grasp the fact that the terms "ekporeusis" and "proienai" have different meanings, and that the former term is reserved to the Father alone, who causes the Spirit's subsistence (i.e., His hypostasis) through procession (ekporeusis), while the latter term is a more general term that is used in connection with the Spirit's manifesting progression (proienai) not as person but as energy, which comes from the Father through the Son.

Well you are aware that Latins don't make a distinction between God's 'essense' and 'energies' right? Understanding the Latin emphasis on the divine simplicity how would this distinction between Greek terms play a role in the Western tradition expressing the consubstantial communion between Father and Son first?
Yes, having been a Latin Catholic for 18 years before my transfer to the Eastern Church, I am aware that they do not make the distinction between essence and energy, which is why they do not understand what St. Maximos is actually saying in the letter to Marinus.

something rather odd in this letter: it uses the term "Romaios" for "Latin."  I don't think I've come across a post Constantine Greek document that so uses that term.

“Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’

Dear Marlo,

For several years we created many threads on CAF on the filioque.... and we never resolved anything and we never convinced anybody of anything.

The question is just too profound for the snippety way we communicate via e-Forums.

If you want a really great and profound analysis of Saint Maximus on the filioque, then Siecienski is the man to read.....

"The Use of Maximus the Confessor’s Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)."
A. Edward Siecienski, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.

I dont want to focus on what doctrines were proclaimed, just the fact that according to you guys, councils can be voided.

Do you believe that the church had erred in the council of 869?

If you say that councils can be voided, why cant other councils be voided?

Huh?

You obviously read neither my explanation, nor the text at the links I submitted.

Council of 869 is robber council. There are more robber councils in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th century.

Why did Rome considered 869 council as a robber one (pseudo) and applied 879 one until middle 12the century?
 
Quote
The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136.

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

From the text it's obvious somebody made St. Maximos to think that Latins don't believe filioque as they teach it now.

It's about ekporeusis (originates, proceeds) and proienai (manifests). Are we debating filioque now? Shouldn't you open a separate thread for that?

And how come we switched from validity of the councils to the opinions of Fathers?

BTW, I'm still eager to see the text of St. Cyril of Alexandria when he confessed filioque. Though I'm not St. Maximos, I hope it should be easy for you to present it to me.

Yet, I believe the topic is the point about validity of the counsils, and why Bishop Artemije's statement about non-existence of Ravenna Statement is valid.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 12:06:15 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #236 on: May 24, 2010, 12:23:03 PM »


Dear Marlo,

For several years we created many threads on CAF on the filioque.... and we never resolved anything and we never convinced anybody of anything.

The question is just too profound for the snippety way we communicate via e-Forums.

If you want a really great and profound analysis of Saint Maximus on the filioque, then Siecienski is the man to read.....

"The Use of Maximus the Confessor’s Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)."
A. Edward Siecienski, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.


There are rare moments when I am quite lucid.


Dr. Siecienski’s dissertation is available for purchase at the link below
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3201137/

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 35,633



« Reply #237 on: May 24, 2010, 12:44:49 PM »

This is another good thread from a differet angle:
Energetic Procession (an Orthodox blog run by Perry Robinson and Photios Jones) is a good source of information on the "filioque." 

Below is a link to an article entitled "St. Maximos the Confessor and the Filioque Doctrine" that touches on the distinction between the Spirit's eternal origination (ekporeusis) as person, which is from the Father alone, and the manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) of the Spirit's energies, which is from the Father through the Son.
 
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2006/12/03/st-maximus-the-conffesor-and-the-filioque-doctrine-part-i/
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
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #238 on: May 24, 2010, 08:58:47 PM »


Dear Marlo,

For several years we created many threads on CAF on the filioque.... and we never resolved anything and we never convinced anybody of anything.

The question is just too profound for the snippety way we communicate via e-Forums.

If you want a really great and profound analysis of Saint Maximus on the filioque, then Siecienski is the man to read.....

"The Use of Maximus the Confessor’s Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)."
A. Edward Siecienski, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.


There are rare moments when I am quite lucid.


Dr. Siecienski’s dissertation is available for purchase at the link below
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3201137/


Thanks a lot for this reference. I'll be looking into it.
BTW, are there any responses on the statement of the Catholic bishops as I gave the links above?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #239 on: May 24, 2010, 11:58:06 PM »


Dear Marlo,

For several years we created many threads on CAF on the filioque.... and we never resolved anything and we never convinced anybody of anything.

The question is just too profound for the snippety way we communicate via e-Forums.

If you want a really great and profound analysis of Saint Maximus on the filioque, then Siecienski is the man to read.....

"The Use of Maximus the Confessor’s Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)."
A. Edward Siecienski, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.


There are rare moments when I am quite lucid.


Dr. Siecienski’s dissertation is available for purchase at the link below
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3201137/


Thanks a lot for this reference. I'll be looking into it.
BTW, are there any responses on the statement of the Catholic bishops as I gave the links above?


http://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

The US Catholic-Orthodox Consultation has issued quite a number of Agreed Statements.

There has not, to my knowledge, been any reaction from any Orthodox Churches or their Synods.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #240 on: May 25, 2010, 12:28:55 AM »


Dear Marlo,

For several years we created many threads on CAF on the filioque.... and we never resolved anything and we never convinced anybody of anything.

The question is just too profound for the snippety way we communicate via e-Forums.

If you want a really great and profound analysis of Saint Maximus on the filioque, then Siecienski is the man to read.....

"The Use of Maximus the Confessor’s Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)."
A. Edward Siecienski, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.


There are rare moments when I am quite lucid.


Dr. Siecienski’s dissertation is available for purchase at the link below
http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3201137/


According to the abstaract of the article: "Yet I maintain that the Letter to Marinus , properly understood, provided the hermeneutical key to resolving the ancient question of the filioque , and that even in the fifteenth century there existed a school of Byzantine trinitarian theology capable of providing this interpretation. Seen as a clear explication of Maximus's own trinitarian thinking and the consensus patrum as it existed in the seventh century (i.e., the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and his eternal flowing forth through the Son), the Letter to Marinus offered the Florentine delegates, and continues to offer today, the best way of reconciling East and West and of establishing (or re-establishing) a genuinely ecumenical understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #241 on: August 31, 2011, 08:43:54 AM »

Bumping this as a reference for the Orthodox on CAF who are dealing with Catholic questions about the reasons fior the schism


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.



Logged
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #242 on: August 31, 2011, 10:14:36 AM »

Bumping this as a reference for the Orthodox on CAF who are dealing with Catholic questions about the reasons fior the schism


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.




I think it's interesting how he accuses the Greeks of holding the Mosaic Law accursed, but also of adhering to Jewish ritual purity.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,431


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #243 on: August 31, 2011, 12:29:47 PM »

"They castrate their guests." LOL! laugh laugh laugh
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 12:29:59 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,498



WWW
« Reply #244 on: August 31, 2011, 12:41:19 PM »

"They castrate their guests." LOL! laugh laugh laugh

Maybe we finally find out the real reason that infuriated the Cardinal, a guest in Constantinople. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #245 on: August 31, 2011, 01:04:50 PM »

With reference to:
 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
Is it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,847


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #246 on: August 31, 2011, 02:48:54 PM »

With reference to:
 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
Is it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?
I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

PP

P.S. I did hear something about your comment stanley.
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #247 on: August 31, 2011, 03:31:17 PM »

With reference to:
 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
Is it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?
I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

PP

P.S. I did hear something about your comment stanley.
Obviously, the whole notice of excommunication delivered by Humbertus was a disaster and a huge mistake.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,965


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #248 on: August 31, 2011, 03:51:10 PM »

With reference to:
 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
Is it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?
I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

I don't think that statement makes any sense at all.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,847


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #249 on: August 31, 2011, 04:12:55 PM »

With reference to:
 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son
Is it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?
I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

I don't think that statement makes any sense at all.


Its just a joke......if you didnt get it sorry.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
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 0.139 seconds with 52 queries.