OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 02:42:32 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 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error  (Read 31484 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #135 on: April 02, 2011, 03:32:02 PM »

ughh this annoys me. it is obvious from scripture... the holy spirit proceeds fromt he father BUT may be sent by either the father or the son as it is evident in john 15:26.the Orthodox are always right -.-

The NIV translation is interesting on this: 
"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."
But regardless of the translation, the first part of the text affirms the Orthodox position even more than the second, that even when Christ sends the Spirit, the Spirit is still "from the Father."  There is no ambiguity here. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #136 on: April 02, 2011, 03:39:41 PM »

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #137 on: April 02, 2011, 05:19:14 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #138 on: April 02, 2011, 05:35:55 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father." 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #139 on: April 02, 2011, 05:53:01 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 05:56:37 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #140 on: April 02, 2011, 06:01:45 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.
Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.
Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father." 
Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."  I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  M. 
I understand.  No one has a problem with mission from Father and Son.   In eternal procession, "as from one principle" would be a problem because either the Father is the principle (arche) in the Godhead or He is not.  Likewise, if it refers to the essence shared by the Father and Son, the Spirit shares the same essence, and does not proceed from Himself, nor can the Spirit be separated from any function of the essence.  Whether "and the Son" is heretical of itself as a statement in the Latin, as the Latin as stated allows for a "mission" interpretation, is certain a valid conversation.  But the problem is there is still an argument for its referring to eternal procession. 
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #141 on: April 02, 2011, 06:10:24 PM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be 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 #142 on: April 02, 2011, 06:47:24 PM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: April 02, 2011, 07:33:42 PM »

I understand.  No one has a problem with mission from Father and Son.   In eternal procession, "as from one principle" would be a problem because either the Father is the principle (arche) in the Godhead or He is not.  Likewise, if it refers to the essence shared by the Father and Son, the Spirit shares the same essence, and does not proceed from Himself, nor can the Spirit be separated from any function of the essence.  Whether "and the Son" is heretical of itself as a statement in the Latin, as the Latin as stated allows for a "mission" interpretation, is certain a valid conversation.  But the problem is there is still an argument for its referring to eternal procession.  

Dear Father,

Here are a few of the notes from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity's Clarification of the Filioque.  I only have the document itself in RTF that I could send to you if you'd like, but I think the following notes are instructive even out of context. I thought that the last item from St. Gregory Nyssa was particularly helpful:
Quote
3 Tertullian uses the verb procedere in a sense common to the Word and the Spirit insofar as they receive divinity from the Father: "The Word was not uttered out of something empty and vain, and he does not lack substance, he who proceeded (processit) from such a (divine) substance and has made so many (created) substances." (Adv. Praxean, VII, 6).
St Augustine, following St Ambrose, takes up this more common conception of procession: "All that proceeds is not born, although what is born proceeds" (Contra Maximinum, II, 14, 1, PL 42, 770).
Much later St Thomas Aquinas remarks that "the divine nature is communicated in every processing that is not ad extra" (Summa Theologica Ia, q.27, a.3, 2um). For him, as for all this Latin theology which used the term "procession" for the Son as well as for the Spirit, "generation is a procession which puts the divine person in possession of the divine nature" (ibid., Ia. q.43, a 2, c), for "from all eternity the Son proceeds in order to be God" (ibid.). In the same way, he affirms that "through his procession, the Holy Spirit receives the nature of the Father, as does the Son" (ibid., Ia, q.35, a.2, c). "Of words referring to any kind of origin, the most general is procession. We use it to indicate any origin whatever; we say, for instance, that the line proceeds from the point; that the ray proceeds from the sun, the river from its source, and likewise in all kinds of other cases. Since we admit one or another of these words that evoke origin, we can, therefore, conclude that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son" (ibid., Ia, q.36, a.2, c).
 
4  St Cyril bears witness here to a Trinitarian doctrine common to the whole school of Alexandria since St Athanasius, who had written "Just as the Son says: 'All that the Father has is mine' (Jn 16:15), so shall we find that, through the Son, it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters to Serapion, III, 1, 33, PG 26, 625 B). St Epiphanius of Saramis (Ancoratus, VIII, PG 43, 29 C) and Didymus the Blind (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, CLIII, PG 34, 1064 A) link the Father and the Son by the same preposition ek in the communication to the Holy Spirit of the consubstantial divinity.

5 "The two relationships of the Son to the Father and of the Holy Spirit to the Father oblige us to place two relationships in the Father, one referring to the Son and the other to the Holy Spirit" (St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia, q.32, a.2, c).

6 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no.248.

7 St Gregory of Nazianzus says that "the Spirit is a middle term (meson) between the Unbegotten and the Begotten" (Discourse 31, 8, Sources Chrétiennes, no.250, p.290). Cf also, in a Thomistic perspective, G Leblond, "Point of view on the procession of the Holy Spirit," in Revue Thomiste, LXXXVI, t.78, 1978, pp.293-302.

8 St Cyril of Alexandria says that "the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou)," (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A).

9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 07:35:28 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #144 on: April 02, 2011, 08:04:05 PM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

I have something archived from Apotheoun which points to the error of the procession from the Trinity As Principle.


"Texts which speak of the Son having "all things" in common with the Father, or which speak of the Spirit as having "all things" in common with the Father and the Son, concerns the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis, and not their manner of origin (tropos hyparxeos).  To deny this distinction is to fall into the heresy of Sabellius, who confused the distinct hypostatic properties of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with their common essence.  The Son and Spirit receive their hypostatic existence from the Father alone, because He is the sole cause, principle, source, and font of divinity; and so, by generating the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit, He (the Father) imparts His own essential nature to them.

"In order to understand these triadological distinctions better, and to see why the East rejects the filioque as defined by Florence and Lyons II as heretical, I recommend reading the recently published dissertation of A. Edward Siecienski, which is entitled, "The Use of Maximus the Confessor's Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-439)."

Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #145 on: April 02, 2011, 08:35:15 PM »

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
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: 35,613



« Reply #146 on: April 02, 2011, 08:50:54 PM »

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority?  
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church are in schism with it, as opposed to being in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith, the ones who confess it as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council set their seal upon it, not the "new and approved" version of Toledo.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 09:21:15 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
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #147 on: April 02, 2011, 08:51:19 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #148 on: April 02, 2011, 08:52:15 PM »

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,393



WWW
« Reply #149 on: April 02, 2011, 08:56:00 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #150 on: April 02, 2011, 09:00:48 PM »

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Actually your point makes no sense. To say that my parish, the church I go to is Catholic is to say it contains the fullness of faith and worship from time immemorial. When I enter the doors of the parish I go to, I am in the Catholic Church.

How can I be Catholic? How am I universal? How do I contain the fullness faith, worship, and tradition?

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #151 on: April 02, 2011, 09:03:36 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 

The petty and insular fallout of the problem created by the RCC over a millenium ago.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,393



WWW
« Reply #152 on: April 02, 2011, 09:05:40 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 

The petty and insular fallout of the problem created by the RCC over a millenium ago.

It's the petty and insular fallout of a thread that was closed for just this reason.

Or to quote some of my ancestors/relatives from Jersey: "Nice thread you got here.  Be a shame if anything happened to it."
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
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: 35,613



« Reply #153 on: April 02, 2011, 09:19:02 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Back in the ancient four sees in the East, I'm not "kaathuuliikii," but neither is the One, Holy, Catholic (jaami'iyyah) and Apostolic Church, I'm "jaami'i" (altougth we usually say Ruumiii "Roman").  In the fifth see, recently rectored with an Orhtodox bishop, its bishop is not "catolic" but in his native Romanian he is sorbornicesc, like his One, Holy, Catholic (sobornicească) and Apostollic Church.  The Rpmanians in submission to the Vatican are "catolici," but eveidently not enough for the Vatican: they have been banned from bringing their married clergy to Italy, although there are perhaps around a half million of them there, as oppoed to the "sobornicesti" Catholic Romanians, who are over a million in Italy.

In the next Patriarchate, the main square is called Sobornaya Ploshchad in Russian "Catholic Square."

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:
Quote
I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.Cool Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.
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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #154 on: April 02, 2011, 09:44:48 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense 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 #155 on: April 02, 2011, 09:46:27 PM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

I have something archived from Apotheoun which points to the error of the procession from the Trinity As Principle.


"Texts which speak of the Son having "all things" in common with the Father, or which speak of the Spirit as having "all things" in common with the Father and the Son, concerns the consubstantial communion of the three divine hypostaseis, and not their manner of origin (tropos hyparxeos).  To deny this distinction is to fall into the heresy of Sabellius, who confused the distinct hypostatic properties of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with their common essence.  The Son and Spirit receive their hypostatic existence from the Father alone, because He is the sole cause, principle, source, and font of divinity; and so, by generating the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit, He (the Father) imparts His own essential nature to them.

Yeah, this makes much more sense.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #156 on: April 02, 2011, 09:47:26 PM »

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority?  
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church are in schism with it, as opposed to being in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith, the ones who confess it as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council set their seal upon it, not the "new and approved" version of Toledo.

How many times are you two going to play this same game?  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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #157 on: April 02, 2011, 09:48:04 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?

I'm sure Isa would be willing to identify as Catholic.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #158 on: April 02, 2011, 09:49:21 PM »

After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

The members of the Church of Christ only calling themselves Catholic is entirely without historical precedent.
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 #159 on: April 02, 2011, 09:50:34 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Just out of curiosity.... What, if anything, does this have to do the Filioque and Christology? 

Most likely nothing. They've just been led away to their usual game of claiming Catholicity for their own church back and forth.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #160 on: April 02, 2011, 10:01:39 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

I hope you're sitting down, deusveritasest, because I've got great news for you. [Roman] Catholics aren't required to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Trinity.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #161 on: April 02, 2011, 10:08:37 PM »

Yet, it is pride, plain and simple. This is further confirmed by the fact that I believe that RC would gladly give up filioque as a pet teaching (along with immaculate conception, among others) if the EO would give on Papal Supremacy and the related authority issues.  It is ALL about authority, and therefore, pride.
One could also argue that refusal to submit to authority is prideful. Wink
When has android refused to submit to authority? 
Not sure when. Whenever he decided to be in or remain in schism with the Catholic church.
Odd manner of speaking, that those who remain in the Catholic Church in an schism with it, as in schism from the Vatican.  It implies that both sides on opposite sides of schism are in schism.  The One, Holy, Catholic Church is never in schism, though she is with those who confess the Orthodox Faith.
I am not sure who you think belongs to the Catholic Church. Surely you are not insinuating that that Church is YOUR Church are you? After all, I would think the one who belongs to such a Church would call himself simply "Catholic."

Actually your point makes no sense.

I wouldn't say it makes no sense. But I do think it's pretty silly.

Wyatt has challenged ialmisry to described himself as "Catholic", without any qualifiers, in his profile. Since ialmisry hasn't done so, Wyatt is seeing what conclusions he can prove from that.

You see the same sort of thing in all the higher-level dialogues.  Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #162 on: April 02, 2011, 10:38:49 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?
I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Do you not read the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils?  Adherents to the Catholic Church are called "Orthodox Christians." 
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #163 on: April 02, 2011, 10:49:49 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

Yes.  It sounds silly to me too.  It's a good thing that is not what Filioque means.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #164 on: April 02, 2011, 10:52:35 PM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #165 on: April 02, 2011, 11:06:02 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

I hope you're sitting down, deusveritasest, because I've got great news for you. [Roman] Catholics aren't required to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Trinity.

Huh? That's precisely what Mary indicates here:

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #166 on: April 02, 2011, 11:06:34 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

Yes.  It sounds silly to me too.  It's a good thing that is not what Filioque means.

But that is precisely what you indicated when you spoke of the "Trinity-as-principle":

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.
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 #167 on: April 02, 2011, 11:10:10 PM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #168 on: April 02, 2011, 11:13:57 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Back in the ancient four sees in the East, I'm not "kaathuuliikii," but neither is the One, Holy, Catholic (jaami'iyyah) and Apostolic Church, I'm "jaami'i" (altougth we usually say Ruumiii "Roman").  In the fifth see, recently rectored with an Orhtodox bishop, its bishop is not "catolic" but in his native Romanian he is sorbornicesc, like his One, Holy, Catholic (sobornicească) and Apostollic Church.  The Rpmanians in submission to the Vatican are "catolici," but eveidently not enough for the Vatican: they have been banned from bringing their married clergy to Italy, although there are perhaps around a half million of them there, as oppoed to the "sobornicesti" Catholic Romanians, who are over a million in Italy.

In the next Patriarchate, the main square is called Sobornaya Ploshchad in Russian "Catholic Square."

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:
Quote
I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.Cool Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.
So....you belong to the Catholic Church but are not Catholic? Umm...okay. I am glad I am not Eastern Orthodox. Too confusing.

As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 11:16:10 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Offline Offline

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,243



« Reply #169 on: April 02, 2011, 11:22:05 PM »

As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?

They consider themselves Catholic, but it would be confusing to continue calling themselves Catholic in the west (as they once did). Calling yourself something like the "Greek Orthodox Catholic Church of America" or whatever would just be setting yourself up for a lot of frustration. Likewise, they could call themselves "evangelical," because they believe that aspect of Christianity is part of their make-up*, but that would also cause confusion.

*St. Justin Popovich, for example, spoke of "evangelical virtues" and an "evangelistic faith"
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 11:23:14 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #170 on: April 02, 2011, 11:23:18 PM »

bump

I think the substance of this thread is more important than a private scuffle over names...really...

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,393


« Reply #171 on: April 02, 2011, 11:36:45 PM »

As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?

They consider themselves Catholic, but it would be confusing to continue calling themselves Catholic in the west (as they once did). Calling yourself something like the "Greek Orthodox Catholic Church of America" or whatever would just be setting yourself up for a lot of frustration. Likewise, they could call themselves "evangelical," because they believe that aspect of Christianity is part of their make-up*, but that would also cause confusion.

*St. Justin Popovich, for example, spoke of "evangelical virtues" and an "evangelistic faith"
Yes, but my point is if ialmisry is so adamant about laying claim to the title "the Catholic Church," which is confusing, then he should also have no problem referring to himself as Catholic under the faith segment of his profile. As yet he has not done so. My point is if he is going to claim the title for his Church and say they alone have the rights to that title then he should have no problem calling himself a "Catholic."
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #172 on: April 02, 2011, 11:44:57 PM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.

Wow. Up to your "you don't understand what our church teaches" business again when people call you on your inconsistency. In this instance, you are the one who offered "Trinity-as-principle" as the excuse for the filioque, in response to my objection that the Father cannot be the principle if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, and thus the only meaning that would be sensible to derive from what you are saying is that you are speaking of the Trinity being the principle of the Holy Spirit's procession.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,412


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #173 on: April 02, 2011, 11:58:23 PM »

Not jumping through the hoops of your supreme pontiff, what makes you think I'll jump for you?

I just define my Faith and my Church as the Fathers in Ecumenical Council defined them-the Arab just defines me.  I know that doesn't suit either your Roman pontiff or yourself, since you "know" better than they, and can redefine things "better,"  but I'm going to stick with them: anaa jaami'ii.
So how can your Church be the "Catholic Church" yet you are not simply "Catholic"?
Back in the ancient four sees in the East, I'm not "kaathuuliikii," but neither is the One, Holy, Catholic (jaami'iyyah) and Apostolic Church, I'm "jaami'i" (altougth we usually say Ruumiii "Roman").  In the fifth see, recently rectored with an Orhtodox bishop, its bishop is not "catolic" but in his native Romanian he is sorbornicesc, like his One, Holy, Catholic (sobornicească) and Apostollic Church.  The Rpmanians in submission to the Vatican are "catolici," but eveidently not enough for the Vatican: they have been banned from bringing their married clergy to Italy, although there are perhaps around a half million of them there, as oppoed to the "sobornicesti" Catholic Romanians, who are over a million in Italy.

In the next Patriarchate, the main square is called Sobornaya Ploshchad in Russian "Catholic Square."

The Arians called themselves Catholic. Their great apostle Wulfinas, according to his foster son and disciple, and Arian bishop of Milan Auxentius, confessed:
Quote
I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,
I believe
that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.Cool Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.trans.html
Sounds like the filioque to me. Perhaps why the Arians snuck it in at Toledo.
So....you belong to the Catholic Church but are not Catholic? Umm...okay. I am glad I am not Eastern Orthodox. Too confusing.

As a side note, it is rather interesting to me that you so aggressively claim the title of "Catholic" for your Church but are very squeamish about using "Catholic" as your title. Any reason for that?
This "AM NOT!", "ARE, TOO!" silliness is the reason another thread recently got locked. Why must you two bring it to THIS thread? Can't you just drop it?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 12:00:08 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #174 on: April 03, 2011, 11:17:39 AM »

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The following is worth considering in light of your question here:

Quote
9 St Gregory of Nyssa writes: "The Holy Spirit is said to be of the Father and it is attested that he is of the Son. St Paul says: 'Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9). So the Spirit who is of God (the Father) is also the Spirit of Christ. However, the Son who is of God (the Father) is not said to be of the Spirit: the consecutive order of the relationship cannot be reversed" (Fragment In orationem dominicam, quoted by St John Damascene, PG 46. 1109 BC).

IF you wish to understand what I was talking about when I spoke of the Trinity please read the quote from St Gregory Nyssa above.  I referenced the Trinity-As-Principle with reference to the relationships outlined in the Nyssa quote.

To add your own interpretation is irrelevant.  It's what the Church teaches that is important.  Not what you understand.  If you cannot grasp it accurately, I am sorry.   Perhaps at some point it will become more clear to you.

Wow. Up to your "you don't understand what our church teaches" business again when people call you on your inconsistency. In this instance, you are the one who offered "Trinity-as-principle" as the excuse for the filioque, in response to my objection that the Father cannot be the principle if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, and thus the only meaning that would be sensible to derive from what you are saying is that you are speaking of the Trinity being the principle of the Holy Spirit's procession.

I don't mean to be repetitive but you are missing the point.

The Father certainly can be said to be the principle for the Holy Spirit and that is a true statement as it stands.

The Trinity-as-Principle is not a source.  It is a set of relationships.

We are not dealing with an EITHER/OR situation here.  It can and is a BOTH/AND situation.

The Father is principle always.  

With the addition of Filioque you THEN draw attention to the eternal relationships among the Persons of the Trinity which is ONE...

In order to see a patristic teaching on the "directional" flow of those relationships then go and read the statement from St. Gregory Nyssa that I posted.  That will explain why the Son does not have to proceed from the Spirit...logically.  The logic of the relationships among the Persons of the Trinity do not demand that at all.

It is hardly fair to force an EITHER/OR situation where it never was intended to be that and does not need to be that.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 11:18:28 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 5,670



« Reply #175 on: April 03, 2011, 12:58:44 PM »

In the "procession' the 'centre' is the Father, in the "mission" it is the Son.

Not exactly. Christ also says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in His name.

Correct, John 14.26.  Regarding the missio, the Father sends in the Son's name and the Son sends, although His sending is "from the Father."  

Yes.  The real problem is "eternally as from one principle"..."as from one principle" meaning the acknowledgment of Jesus teaching us that he and the Father shared all, and to know the Father all one had to do was know the Son.

Pope John Paul tried to explain it and Metropolitan John after his own critical response, eventually said...and I paraphrase very loosely..."We hope you are telling the truth..."

I remain unconvinced that the substance of the teaching is heretical.  

M.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Trinity just sounds like nonsense to me.

I hope you're sitting down, deusveritasest, because I've got great news for you. [Roman] Catholics aren't required to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Trinity.

Huh? That's precisely what Mary indicates here:

Mary, if the Son is part of this eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from one principle then logically that principle cannot particularly be the Father.

The principle of the Father is one way to look at the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.  The other way is to look at the Trinity as principle in the so-called procession of the Holy Spirit.

In the east, the focus has traditionally been on the Father-As-Principle.

In the west, the focus, in part because of language and in part because of the Arian heresy, has traditionally been on the Trinity-As-Principle.

As far as I am concerned, neither is wrong, and taken together the image of the Trinity in essence and in economy becomes most complete.

M.

Yes, I saw that. What I didn't see was her or anyone else saying that the Trinity-As-Principle idea is something that [Roman] Catholics are required to accept.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #176 on: April 03, 2011, 01:04:19 PM »

Anyone who recites "Filioque" in the Creed seems by definition bound to believe it, and the explanation for it, given by the Church.  That seems to be axiomatic of a creedal profession of faith.

Also Trinity-as-Principle does not indicate "source" or "archon."   It indicates a set of hypostatic relationships that are not bound by a logic of hierarchy.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 01:09:03 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #177 on: April 03, 2011, 09:52:37 PM »

--Is not the name of the Father sufficient to show the priority [Gk. presbeia: seniority] of the Father?...This honor is not capable of passing from the Father to the Son.  (St. John Chrysostom, 4th c.:  Phil. Hom. 7)
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,439



« Reply #178 on: April 03, 2011, 10:02:05 PM »

“The Father alone is the source of the super-essential Godhead” (St. Dionysius, Divine Names 2.5).  Hence, we have the Father alone as the source (Gk. pege), the principle (Gk. arche) and the cause (Gk. aitia) within the Trinity.  Likewise, St. Gregory the Theologian teaches that “God the Trinity has one nature, and the union [Gk. enosis] is the Father" (Orat. 20).
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 11,860


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #179 on: April 03, 2011, 10:13:09 PM »

I have a question to our RCC brothers and sisters. Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it? If so, what is the backing for such a thing, first in the Holy Scriptures and second in the Ecumenical Councils?
On this Point:

"IF any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him (Rom. viii, 9). These words of the Apostle show that the same Spirit is of the Father and of the Son: for the text alleged follows upon these words immediately preceding: If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now it cannot be said that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit merely of the man Christ (Luke iv, 3): for from Gal. iv, 6, Since ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, it appears that the Holy Ghost makes sons of God inasmuch as He is the Spirit of the Son of God, -- sons of God, that is to say, by adoption, which means assimilation to Him who is Son of God by nature. For so the text has it: He hath predestined (them) to become conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29). But the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Spirit of the Son of God except as taking His origin from Him: for this distinction of origin is the only one admissible in the Godhead."  - St. Thomas Aquinas (SCG)

"The Son says of the Holy Ghost: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine (John xvi, 14). Now it cannot be maintained that He shall receive that which belongs to the Son, namely, the divine essence, but not receive it of the Son, but only of the Father: for it follows, All things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine: therefore did I say to you that he shall receive of mine: for if all things that the Father has belong to the Son, the authority of the Father, whereby He is the principle of the Holy Ghost, must belong likewise to the Son." (SCG)

I get what you are saying. Yet, you really have not answered my first question, which was "Is the inclusion of the Filioque so important that you would sacrifice unity for it?" As you may surmise, I ask this because the one Creed that the entire Church agreed to does not contain the Filioque. So, the issue may not be so much theological but ecclesiological.
Yes, it is that important because I believe that it is orthodox, scriptural, and patrisitc. It is true. Just as you do not want to sacrifice truth for unity, neither do we.
Perhaps, I can ask the same question in this way: Is the RCC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the entire Body of Christ, starting with de-dogmatizing those beliefs that are not agreed to by all, through the Seven Ecumenical Councils? I realize that any answer to this question will involve a rethinking of the role of the Pope, not only in the Roman Church but in the entire Body.
We have the same understanding of our Church that you have of yours. We would similarly ask, "Is the EOC prepared to rejoin the Catholic Church by putting herself under the authority of the Body of Christ, starting by accepting the Latin Fathers and all the councils, not just the first seven?"



Here is a proper answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73OiRZf7DsM
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 10:22:19 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

\"Why were so many Civil War battles fought in National Parks? \"
Tags: filioque 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   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 0.223 seconds with 72 queries.