OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 12:15:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error  (Read 33003 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #180 on: April 03, 2011, 10:19:24 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)

Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that you'll succeed in disproving the filioque simply from the fact that the Father is called "Father". Indeed, that argument seems just as weak as the argument that says that the filioque must be true if the Father and Son are one in essence.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #181 on: April 03, 2011, 10:26:20 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)

Frankly, I find it very hard to believe that you'll succeed in disproving the filioque simply from the fact that the Father is called "Father". Indeed, that argument seems just as weak as the argument that says that the filioque must be true if the Father and Son are one in essence.

Dear Peter,

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque.  

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

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 03, 2011, 10:27:02 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #182 on: April 04, 2011, 11:29:05 AM »

Dear elijahmaria,

First, I think I should tell you that, even though I sometimes read your posts, I am really not a follower.

Second, I don't know if you genuinely misunderstood or what, but my statement

Indeed, that argument seems just as weak as the argument that says that the filioque must be true if the Father and Son are one in essence.

was a reference to Papist's post

Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #183 on: April 04, 2011, 11:34:46 AM »

Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.  Filioque defines relationships not essences:

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque. 

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

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

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #184 on: April 04, 2011, 12:01:53 PM »

Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.

Wow, you just never stop trying to bait me do you? Alright, show where I was wrong, if you think I was.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,471


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #185 on: April 05, 2011, 09:44:42 AM »



Wyatt, Ialmsiry, and all other semantic warriors,

I will no longer tolerate threads being derailed by the pointless bickering about the right to use the word "Catholic".  You all know your positions and you all know that neither of you is going to budge on it. 

The next time I see either of you, or anyone else who is familiar with this silly little internet argument, engage in this semantic urination contest, you will be put on a 60 day warning and/or straight to post-moderation if I feel like it.

In short, KNOCK IT OFF!!!

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #186 on: April 05, 2011, 11:10:24 AM »

The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

This argument is faulty, as it confuses the immanent and economic Trinities.  The divine processions occur within the eternal life of the Godhead, apart from the world God has made and thus apart from the Incarnation.  So whatever the merits and demerits of the Filioque may be, it does not prevent or inhibit a strong assertion of the Incarnation. 
Logged

ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #187 on: April 06, 2011, 02:35:03 AM »

Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 02:35:56 AM by ativan » Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #188 on: April 06, 2011, 10:47:46 AM »

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I find these 'categories' of the Trinity, (i.e. 'immanent' versus 'economic' Trinities) objectionable on the surface, since these are not universally accepted concepts.  I have tried to research these terms, and can't find any substantive discussion of them before Rahner, so I assume that even for the RCC these concepts are new.

The 'red flag' here was that the Church of Rome did not bring its insistence on the 'Filioque' before the entire Church when assembled.  Thus, these two concepts and the Filioque are not universally recognized.

Setting that aside for a moment, if what you are saying is true and that the Filioque does not add or subtract from the understanding of the Person of Christ and His Incarnation, then it is entirely meaningless and ought to be dropped straight away as a useless accretion that inhibits Church unity and confuses the people.

I think the less complicated theology is, the less opportunity we have for error and heresy to creep in.



The problem with the Filioque is that it obscures the two natures of Christ, fully God, and fully Man.

But consider this if p then not q: If Christ is fully God, "of one essence with the Father," then it is incoherent to say that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both the Father and the Son-----unless one resorts to a polytheist paradigm of essence, perhaps, which is of course, heresy (ugh. hate to use that word).

This argument is faulty, as it confuses the immanent and economic Trinities.  The divine processions occur within the eternal life of the Godhead, apart from the world God has made and thus apart from the Incarnation.  So whatever the merits and demerits of the Filioque may be, it does not prevent or inhibit a strong assertion of the Incarnation. 
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #189 on: April 06, 2011, 11:53:35 AM »

Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Quote
Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

30. Whenever the union of the Greek and Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.

Granting that this is so, the second question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase "and from the Son" to the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople. The difficulty is increased in that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus decreed that no additions should be made to the Nicene Creed: "The holy Council decrees that it is lawful for no one to produce or compose a Faith other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea together with the Holy Spirit." It has been asserted in answer to this question that it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.

On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase "and from the Son." On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase "and from the Son."

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add "and from the Son" to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, "to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins."

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said "and from the Son" in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.

There is nothing at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6, of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase "and from the Son," provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church's power of making this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however, it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith. However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church.

31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.
Quote
The Greeks are bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but they are not bound to proclaim it in the Creed.
Cf. Benedict XIV Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742:
Logged


I'm going to need this.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #190 on: April 06, 2011, 12:01:27 PM »

That has to be one of the creepiest things I have read in a long time, and I have a habit of reading creepy stuff.

The implications of this are horrendous.


Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Quote
Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

30. Whenever the union of the Greek and Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.

Granting that this is so, the second question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase "and from the Son" to the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople. The difficulty is increased in that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus decreed that no additions should be made to the Nicene Creed: "The holy Council decrees that it is lawful for no one to produce or compose a Faith other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea together with the Holy Spirit." It has been asserted in answer to this question that it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.

On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase "and from the Son." On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase "and from the Son."

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add "and from the Son" to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, "to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins."

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said "and from the Son" in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.

There is nothing at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6, of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase "and from the Son," provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church's power of making this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however, it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith. However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church.

31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.
Quote
The Greeks are bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but they are not bound to proclaim it in the Creed.
Cf. Benedict XIV Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742:

Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #191 on: April 06, 2011, 12:04:55 PM »

Dear Fr. Kimel,

I find these 'categories' of the Trinity, (i.e. 'immanent' versus 'economic' Trinities) objectionable on the surface, since these are not universally accepted concepts.  I have tried to research these terms, and can't find any substantive discussion of them before Rahner, so I assume that even for the RCC these concepts are new.

Fr Giryus, the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinities--of if you prefer, between God's inner being and his manifestations and activities in the world, i.e., between  theologia and economia--is implicit in all Trinitarian reflection, both Eastern and Western, from the 4th century on.  As Fr Georges Florovsky observes, it was by making this clear distinction in the fourth century, and thereby liberating the divine processions from all connection to the economy of salvation, that the Church was able to break free from subordinationist Trinitarian theologies. 

This is why the original poster's claim that the Filioque compromises a proper understanding of the Incarnation does not obtain.   As traditionally formulated, the Filioque belongs to theologia, not economia.     

Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #192 on: April 06, 2011, 12:46:00 PM »

The problem with saying that it is 'implicit' means that it was not directly said despite centuries of debate, which makes the argument less plausible. It is still a modern argument.

Fr. Florovsky's theolegoumenon is not 'authoritative' for the Church, but merely his observation.  He certainly did not argue that his opinion was a definitive teaching of the Church, because he would have to admit there has been no official acceptance of these categories to justify the Filioque and the implications of them as later developed by Rahner, who seems to have been making a new argument for an old decision.  That is problematic in and of itself, since it imputes intentions which did not exist at the time of the decision.

This would make the whole case one of revisionism, which is essentially the original Orthodox protest of the RCC's amendment of its version of the Creed after the Counsel and outside the decision-making process of the Universal Church.


Dear Fr. Kimel,

I find these 'categories' of the Trinity, (i.e. 'immanent' versus 'economic' Trinities) objectionable on the surface, since these are not universally accepted concepts.  I have tried to research these terms, and can't find any substantive discussion of them before Rahner, so I assume that even for the RCC these concepts are new.

Fr Giryus, the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinities--of if you prefer, between God's inner being and his manifestations and activities in the world, i.e., between  theologia and economia--is implicit in all Trinitarian reflection, both Eastern and Western, from the 4th century on.  As Fr Georges Florovsky observes, it was by making this clear distinction in the fourth century, and thereby liberating the divine processions from all connection to the economy of salvation, that the Church was able to break free from subordinationist Trinitarian theologies. 

This is why the original poster's claim that the Filioque compromises a proper understanding of the Incarnation does not obtain.   As traditionally formulated, the Filioque belongs to theologia, not economia.     


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #193 on: April 06, 2011, 01:08:10 PM »

Fr Giryus, we seem to be arguing apples and oranges here.  You are addressing the question "What is authoritative Church dogma?"  I'm talking the distinction between the inner Trinitarian relations and God's self-communication within creation.  No matter what terminology one uses to speak about this distinction (and the terminology will vary from theologian to theologian, tradition to tradition), the distinction is fundamental to all orthodox Trinitarian reflection, whether Eastern or Western.  It is the distinction, if you will, between the eternal begetting of the Son and the temporal conception of the Son in the womb of the Theotokos.  The doctrine of the Holy Trinity doesn't make much sense without this distinction.  Without it, we cannot assert that even if God had never created the world, he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

I'm not arguing for or against the Filioque.  I'm just pointing out that the Filioque claim is a claim about the immanent Trinitarian processions and therefore not to be confused with the economy of salvation. 
Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #194 on: April 06, 2011, 01:30:45 PM »

Well, I understand what you are trying to argue, but what I am saying is that you cannot speak of such things and make your argument outside of dogma when such arguments have the natural implication of effecting dogma.  Such distinctions as you have made naturally effect the meaning of dogma, and so dogma must first be addressed and constantly referred to in all further discussion.

Your distinction simply makes no sense at the dogmatic level, since the dogmatic nature of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was established without the categories of which you speak.  They simply made no room for the 'Filioque,' and so to argue against it by the later establishment of categories goes against the dogma of the Church.  The categories themselves are not dogmatic, and thus they cannot be used to alter dogma.  That's my argument.

To put it bluntly, only like effects like, not merely what we like.  Non-dogma cannot change dogma, because they are not like.
 
Again, I do not see this distinction as being present in 'all orthodox Trinitarian reflection,' nowhere more pointedly in its utter absence from being included in any dogmatic formulae of the Church. Again, the caegories are not 'like' the dogmatic formula of the Creed, so they cannot be used as an argument to change dogma.


Fr Giryus, we seem to be arguing apples and oranges here.  You are addressing the question "What is authoritative Church dogma?"  I'm talking the distinction between the inner Trinitarian relations and God's self-communication within creation.  No matter what terminology one uses to speak about this distinction (and the terminology will vary from theologian to theologian, tradition to tradition), the distinction is fundamental to all orthodox Trinitarian reflection, whether Eastern or Western.  It is the distinction, if you will, between the eternal begetting of the Son and the temporal conception of the Son in the womb of the Theotokos.  The doctrine of the Holy Trinity doesn't make much sense without this distinction.  Without it, we cannot assert that even if God had never created the world, he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

I'm not arguing for or against the Filioque.  I'm just pointing out that the Filioque claim is a claim about the immanent Trinitarian processions and therefore not to be confused with the economy of salvation. 
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #195 on: April 06, 2011, 03:03:25 PM »

Your distinction simply makes no sense at the dogmatic level, since the dogmatic nature of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was established without the categories of which you speak.  They simply made no room for the 'Filioque,' and so to argue against it by the later establishment of categories goes against the dogma of the Church.  The categories themselves are not dogmatic, and thus they cannot be used to alter dogma.  That's my argument.

Again, I do not see this distinction as being present in 'all orthodox Trinitarian reflection,' nowhere more pointedly in its utter absence from being included in any dogmatic formulae of the Church. Again, the caegories are not 'like' the dogmatic formula of the Creed, so they cannot be used as an argument to change dogma.

Fr Giryus, I have to believe there is a terrible misunderstanding at work here.  The distinction about which I am speaking--the distinction between the divine processions of the Godhead and the ad extra activities and self-communications of the Godhead--is fundamental to the Church's confession of God as Holy Trinity.  The West didn't invent this distinction nor is it some modern novelty.  It goes back to St Athanasius and the Cappadocians and is vigorously reitererated by contemporary Orthodox theologians.  We confess this distinction every time we sing the Nicene Creed.  When we declare that the Father begets the Son or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are speaking of eternal processions and relations within the Godhead that are completely independent from the world.  That God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and would be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit even if he had never created the world from out of nothing, is ecumenical dogma. 

As I already mentioned, Fr Florovsky speaks of the "ancient and primary distinction between 'theology' and 'economy'" in his essay "Creation and Creaturehood."  In his Lectures on Dogmatic Theology Met John Zizioulas writes: 

Quote
Now we turn to the relationship of the eternal Trinity and the economic Trinity.  The eternal or immanent Trinity, traditionally called the 'theology' proper, refers to how God is in himself.  The economic Trinity, traditionally the 'economy,' refers to how God is for us. The Greek Fathers insisted that the eternal nature of God is altogether beyond our conception and added that we may not participate in the 'substance' of God.  So we can have no 'theology' of God's 'nature.' ... The Greek Fathers' distinction between theology and economy was most clearly expressed by Saint Basil.  In "On the Holy Spirit," Basil defends a doxology of Alexandria origin which he had introduced to the liturgy in his diocese.  The doxology Basil had inherited took the form 'Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit."  Basil's doxology was "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Spirit."  He replaced the through (the Son) and in (the Holy Spirit), with "and the Son with the Spirit."  Basil's reason was that the first, Alexandrian doxology with its use of "through the Son" and "in the Spirit," relates to the economy in which we come to know God through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.  There is an order and even a hierarchy here, because the Spirit follows the Son.  Basil explained that the "Pneumatomachians" ("Resistors of the Spirit"), who refused to accept the divinity of the Spirit, used the doxology with "in" the Spirit.  They thought that "in" denoted space, which seemed to them to indicate that the Spirit was contained by space, which meant that he was a creature. (pp. 69-70, 72-73)

Vladimir Lossky also aggressively asserts the distinction in his book The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.  His entire argument about the apophatic nature of theology flows from it:

Quote
There is no dependence in relation to created being on the part of the Trinity; no determination of what is called 'the eternal procession of the divine persons' by the act of creation of the world.  Even though the created world did not exist, God would still be Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Ghost--for creation is an act of will. ... If we speak of processions, of acts, or of inner determinations, these expressions--involving, as they do, the ideas of time, becoming and intention--only show to what extent our language, indeed our thought, is poor and deficient before the primordial mystery of revelation. (p. 45)

Hence I do not know what you mean, Father, when you say that this distinction between theology and economy makes no sense at the dogmatic level.  The entire doctrine of the Holy Trinity rests upon this distinction and asserts this distinction.  Apart from this distinction we cannot declare that even if God had never created the world he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Without this distinction we cannot distinguish the eternal processions of the Trinity from the temporal missions of the Holy Trinity.  Without this distinction we will inevitably read back into the Godhead the temporality and mutability of creation. 

But I know that you agree with all of this--hence I do not understand our dispute.   And let me once again reiterate, I have not advanced a single argument in this thread in favor of the Filioque.  I am simply seeking to clarify that the Filioque, as a piece of Trinitarian reflection, belongs to theology, not economy; and this is true even if the Filioque is false. 

I think I have said all that can be said on this topic, so I will now withdraw back into lurking mode.       




 
Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #196 on: April 06, 2011, 03:38:15 PM »

Dear Fr. Kimel,

The matter I am addressing is that the theolegoumena which you are discussing cannot be used in the matter of amending dogma, which is why Fr. Georges and Met. Zizioulas can discuss whatever without naturally leading to the alteration of the Tradition which the Filioque is.  These are, by modern standards, 'theories,' while dogma is 'fact.'  If you say that the Filioque is dogma (i.e. fact), then it must be explained by facts rather than theories. 

The fact is that when the Fathers spoke plainly, they avoided the Filioque.  Modern theologians cannot use their theories to explain the motivations of the Fathers when the Fathers did not use such theories.  That's what I'm saying.  You are reading backwards in history, which is a dangerous practice.

The Filioque may be explainable by modern theories because it is a modern invention whne one considers when the Church of Rome adopted it.  I can't find any discussion of these categories before Rahner, and so I am assuming that Rahner is the one who developed them and theologians afterwards (even Fr. Georges and Met. John) are free to use them, though the latter never used them to justify the Filioque.


Your distinction simply makes no sense at the dogmatic level, since the dogmatic nature of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was established without the categories of which you speak.  They simply made no room for the 'Filioque,' and so to argue against it by the later establishment of categories goes against the dogma of the Church.  The categories themselves are not dogmatic, and thus they cannot be used to alter dogma.  That's my argument.

Again, I do not see this distinction as being present in 'all orthodox Trinitarian reflection,' nowhere more pointedly in its utter absence from being included in any dogmatic formulae of the Church. Again, the caegories are not 'like' the dogmatic formula of the Creed, so they cannot be used as an argument to change dogma.

Fr Giryus, I have to believe there is a terrible misunderstanding at work here.  The distinction about which I am speaking--the distinction between the divine processions of the Godhead and the ad extra activities and self-communications of the Godhead--is fundamental to the Church's confession of God as Holy Trinity.  The West didn't invent this distinction nor is it some modern novelty.  It goes back to St Athanasius and the Cappadocians and is vigorously reitererated by contemporary Orthodox theologians.  We confess this distinction every time we sing the Nicene Creed.  When we declare that the Father begets the Son or that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, we are speaking of eternal processions and relations within the Godhead that are completely independent from the world.  That God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and would be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit even if he had never created the world from out of nothing, is ecumenical dogma. 

As I already mentioned, Fr Florovsky speaks of the "ancient and primary distinction between 'theology' and 'economy'" in his essay "Creation and Creaturehood."  In his Lectures on Dogmatic Theology Met John Zizioulas writes: 

Quote
Now we turn to the relationship of the eternal Trinity and the economic Trinity.  The eternal or immanent Trinity, traditionally called the 'theology' proper, refers to how God is in himself.  The economic Trinity, traditionally the 'economy,' refers to how God is for us. The Greek Fathers insisted that the eternal nature of God is altogether beyond our conception and added that we may not participate in the 'substance' of God.  So we can have no 'theology' of God's 'nature.' ... The Greek Fathers' distinction between theology and economy was most clearly expressed by Saint Basil.  In "On the Holy Spirit," Basil defends a doxology of Alexandria origin which he had introduced to the liturgy in his diocese.  The doxology Basil had inherited took the form 'Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit."  Basil's doxology was "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Spirit."  He replaced the through (the Son) and in (the Holy Spirit), with "and the Son with the Spirit."  Basil's reason was that the first, Alexandrian doxology with its use of "through the Son" and "in the Spirit," relates to the economy in which we come to know God through the Son and in the Holy Spirit.  There is an order and even a hierarchy here, because the Spirit follows the Son.  Basil explained that the "Pneumatomachians" ("Resistors of the Spirit"), who refused to accept the divinity of the Spirit, used the doxology with "in" the Spirit.  They thought that "in" denoted space, which seemed to them to indicate that the Spirit was contained by space, which meant that he was a creature. (pp. 69-70, 72-73)

Vladimir Lossky also aggressively asserts the distinction in his book The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.  His entire argument about the apophatic nature of theology flows from it:

Quote
There is no dependence in relation to created being on the part of the Trinity; no determination of what is called 'the eternal procession of the divine persons' by the act of creation of the world.  Even though the created world did not exist, God would still be Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Ghost--for creation is an act of will. ... If we speak of processions, of acts, or of inner determinations, these expressions--involving, as they do, the ideas of time, becoming and intention--only show to what extent our language, indeed our thought, is poor and deficient before the primordial mystery of revelation. (p. 45)

Hence I do not know what you mean, Father, when you say that this distinction between theology and economy makes no sense at the dogmatic level.  The entire doctrine of the Holy Trinity rests upon this distinction and asserts this distinction.  Apart from this distinction we cannot declare that even if God had never created the world he would still be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Without this distinction we cannot distinguish the eternal processions of the Trinity from the temporal missions of the Holy Trinity.  Without this distinction we will inevitably read back into the Godhead the temporality and mutability of creation. 

But I know that you agree with all of this--hence I do not understand our dispute.   And let me once again reiterate, I have not advanced a single argument in this thread in favor of the Filioque.  I am simply seeking to clarify that the Filioque, as a piece of Trinitarian reflection, belongs to theology, not economy; and this is true even if the Filioque is false. 

I think I have said all that can be said on this topic, so I will now withdraw back into lurking mode.       




 

Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #197 on: April 06, 2011, 03:52:46 PM »

I must say that this ongoing exchange is a keeper!! 

It may well be why we've been in schism for a thousand years.

It may even explain the next thousand to come.

During that time, flawed and all as I am, I hope to remain a Doubtless Purveyor of Filioque, of nothing more than for the fun of it all!!
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #198 on: April 06, 2011, 05:43:47 PM »

I must say that this ongoing exchange is a keeper!!  

It may well be why we've been in schism for a thousand years.

It may even explain the next thousand to come.

During that time, flawed and all as I am, I hope to remain a Doubtless Purveyor of Filioque, of nothing more than for the fun of it all!!
So you admit that you might be wrong? Cool
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 05:45:19 PM by Jetavan » 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.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #199 on: April 06, 2011, 05:55:04 PM »

I must say that this ongoing exchange is a keeper!!  

It may well be why we've been in schism for a thousand years.

It may even explain the next thousand to come.

During that time, flawed and all as I am, I hope to remain a Doubtless Purveyor of Filioque, of nothing more than for the fun of it all!!
So you admit that you might be wrong? Cool

Not precisely  Tongue
Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #200 on: April 06, 2011, 06:45:53 PM »

I need to make two further comments:

First, Karl Rahner is not the originator of the distinction between theology and economy, popularly expressed today as the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinities.  This distinction is a scholastic commonplace, grounded in the teachings of the Nicene Fathers.  Rahner, rather, is known for his assertion of the (relative) identity of the immanent and economic Trinities.  This identity has been employed by contemporary Western theologians to defend the Filioque. Karl Rahner and Karl Barth immediately come to mind.  In response to this Western argument, Eastern theologians, such as Zizioulas, have responded by denying the identity of the immanent and economic Trinities: a distinction between the two must be maintained, they say, lest history and creaturely becoming is read back into the eternal being.     

Second, I have already mentioned three Orthodox theologians who assert the distinction between theology and economy--Florovsky, Lossky, and Zizioiulas.  Contrary to what you suggest, Fr Giryus, none of them can be said to have been influenced by Latin theologians regarding their formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity.  They certainly did not learn the theology/economy distinction from Rahner.  They learned it, rather, from the Church Fathers. 

How about Fr Michael Pomazansky?  I hope you will not suggest that he too was corrupted by contemporary Catholic theology.

Quote
The dogma of the begetting of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father shows the mystical inner relations of the Persons in God and the life of God within Himself. One must clearly distinguish these relations which are pre-eternal, from all eternity, and outside of time, from the manifestations of the Holy Trinity in the created world, from the activities and manifestations of God's Providence in the world as they have been expressed in such events as the creation of the world, the coming of the Son of God to earth, His Incarnation, and the sending down of the Holy Spirit. These providential manifestations and activities have been accomplished in time. In historical time the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary by the descent upon Her of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). In historical time, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at the time of His baptism by John. In historical time, the Holy Spirit was sent down by the Son from the Father, appearing in the form of fiery tongues. The Son came to earth through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is sent down by the Son in accordance with the promise, "the Comforter ... Whom l will send unto you from the Father" (John 15:26). Concerning the pre-eternal begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, one might ask: "When was this begetting and this procession?" St. Gregory the Theologian replies: "This was before when itself. You have heard about the begetting; do not be curious to know in what form this begetting was. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds." (pp. 83-84)

Pomazansky then goes on to employ the theology/economy distinction to explain what Eastern Fathers meant when they spoke of the Spirit proceeding "through the Son":  the phrase refers not to the essential relations of the Divine Hypostases but to the "manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the world, that is, to the providential actions of the Holy Trinity, and not to the life of God in Himself" (p. 90).  Here we find the distinction between God in himself and God manifested and revealed in the world invoked precisely to refute the Filioque!  This distinction, in other words, enables us to distinguish between the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son at Pentecost.  Zizioulas also makes this point in his article "One Single Source."

As my final witness, I call to the stand Fr Boris Bobrinskoy:

Quote
Reflecting the thought of the Church Fathers, Orthodox theology rightly distinguishes between trinitarian "theology" and trinitarian "economy."  Trinitarian theology deals with the mystery of the Trinity in its eternal "immanence," the infinite, blessed communion of the divine Persons among themselves, without reference to creation.  Trinitarian economy, on the other hand, refers to the concerted activity of the three Persons ad extra, in creation, as they maintain and restore the created world to a state of well-being adn communion with God.   This distinction between trinitarian theology and trinitarian economy is both fundamental and relative.

It is fundamental in the sense that although the world and human existence are defined with essential reference to God, God cannot be defined either by or for the world.  He possesses in Himself His own fundamental reason for being, which is fully complete and totally self-sufficient.

Yet it is also relative, because Christian theology is in constant tension between (a) the "soteriological" perspective of revelation--that is, all that God teaches us about Himself in fact concerns our salvation and eternal life--and (b) the divine "ontology" of question of "being."  Orthodox theology has thus witnessed a remarkable development, prompted as much by a reaction against Arianism as by an impulse and necessity intrinsic to the human mind.  Beginning with St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians, Orthodox thought moved from the level of the trinitarian economy of salvation to a trinitarian theology, a contemplation of the Holy Trinity in Itself, pressing to the outer limits of what human thought and language can express regarding the eternal properties or attributes of the One God and the Divine Persons.  This development, from "economy" to "theology," provided the foundation for Orthodox dogmatic theology and its doctrine of God in His incomprehensible essence, His trinitarian Hypostases, and His energies in which the human person is called to participate. (The Mystery of the Trinity, pp. 2-3)

But as I said, I know you must already know this, Fr Giryus, and have perhaps just momentarily forgotten it, perhaps because theology/economy distinction was invoked in a controversial discussion of the Filioque.     
 
Logged

Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #201 on: April 06, 2011, 07:00:39 PM »

I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?
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.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #202 on: April 06, 2011, 07:16:48 PM »

I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?

No, I'm saying just the opposite.  As formulated by Latin theologians, the Filioque refers to the eternal, pre-temporal procession of the Spirit, and it is for precisely this reason that the Filioque doesn't impact a proper understanding of the Incarnation (as proposed by the original poster). 

As you know John 15:26 has sometimes been cited by Western theologians as biblical proof of the Filioque:  "When the Advocate comes whom I will send, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify to me" (Jn 15:26).  Ditto John 14:26 and 16:7.  The Orthodox have traditionally responded that this texts refer to a temporal mission of the Spirit, specifically the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.  This response presumes the distinction between the essential and economic Trinities, i.e., between theology and economy. 

This is the only point I am trying to make.  I am not trying to argue for the Filioque.  I am simply attempting to properly locate the Filioque within Trinitarian reflection. 
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #203 on: April 06, 2011, 08:08:53 PM »

Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?


Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Quote
Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son

30. Whenever the union of the Greek and Latin Church has been discussed, the chief matter of contention has been the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. Examination of this point involves a triple aspect, and so is dealt with here under three headings. The first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.

Granting that this is so, the second question is whether it is permissible to add the phrase "and from the Son" to the Creed in the Mass even though this phrase was not used at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Constantinople. The difficulty is increased in that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus decreed that no additions should be made to the Nicene Creed: "The holy Council decrees that it is lawful for no one to produce or compose a Faith other than that defined by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicea together with the Holy Spirit." It has been asserted in answer to this question that it is indeed lawful and very appropriate to make this addition to the Nicene Creed. The Council of Ephesus forbade only additions which are contrary to the Faith, presumptuous, and at variance with general practice, but not those additions which are orthodox and express more plainly some point of faith implied in that Creed.

On the assumption that the first two answers are accepted, the third and final question is whether Orientals and Greeks can be allowed to say the Creed in the way they used to before the Schism, that is to say, without the phrase "and from the Son." On this final point, the practice of the Apostolic See has varied. Sometimes it allowed the Orientals and Greeks to say the Creed without this addition. This allowance was made when it was certain that they accepted the first two points, and it realized that insistence on the addition would block the way to union. At other times this See has insisted on Greeks and Orientals using the addition. It has done this when it had grounds to suspect that they were unwilling to include the addition in the Creed because they shared the false view that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son or that the Church had no power to add the phrase "and from the Son."

The former approach was used by two popes-Blessed Gregory X at the Council of Lyons and Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence-for the reasons already mentioned (Harduin, Collectionis Conciliorum, vol. 7, p. 698D, and vol. 9, p. 305D). The latter position was taken by Pope Nicholas III when he realized that Emperor Michael was not acting in good faith and was not abiding by the promises he had made in establishing union with his predecessor Pope Gregory X. The evidence for this comes from the Vatican Archives and is printed in Raynaldus, 1278, sect. 7. Martin IV and Nicholas IV acted in the same manner. Although the sources are contradictory about the attitude of these popes to this affair, Pachymeres, who was then writing the history of Constantinople, openly declares that they did not imitate the fair judgment of their predecessors. Rather they required that Orientals and Greeks add "and from the Son" to the Creed, in order to remove doubts about their orthodoxy, "to make a definite trial of the faith and opinion of the Greeks; the suitable pledge of this would be for them to say the same Creed as the Latins."

Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Florence allowed the Orientals to say the Creed without the addition. But when he later received the Armenians into union he obliged them to include it (Harduin, vol. 9, p. 435B) perhaps because he had learned that the Armenians were less averse to the addition then were the Greeks.

Similarly, Pope Callistus III, when he sent Brother Simon of the Order of Preachers to Crete in the capacity of Inquisitor, commanded him to watch carefully that the Greeks said "and from the Son" in the Creed, since in Crete there were many Greek refugees from Constantinople which had fallen to the Turks two years earlier (Gregory of Trebizond, epistola ad Cretans, in his Graeciae Orthodoxae, quoted by Allatius, p. 537, and confirmed by Echardus, Scriptorum Ordinis Sanai Dominici, vol. 1, p. 762). It may be that the Pope suspected that the Greeks from Constantinople were weak in this dogma of the faith.

There is nothing at variance with the decrees of the Council of Florence in either of the two forms of the Profession of Faith which, as We have mentioned, were required of the Greeks by Gregory XIII and of the Orientals by Urban VIII. Constitution 34, sect. 6, of Clement VIII (veteris Romani Bullarii, vol. 3) and Our constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 1, are both addressed to Latin bishops with Greeks and Albanians who observe the Greek rite living in their dioceses. These people should not be ordered to say the Creed with the addition of the phrase "and from the Son," provided that they confess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and that they recognize the Church's power of making this addition. They should be obliged to say the additional phrase, however, it its ommission would cause scandal, if this particular custom of reciting the Creed with its addition prevailed in their locality, or it were thought necessary to obtain unambiguous proof of the correctness of their faith. However, both the fathers of the synod of Zamoscia (heading 1, de Fide Catholica and the fathers of the synod of Lebanon (pt. 1, no. 12) were right to prudently decree, in order to remove every doubt, that all priests subject to them should use the Creed with its additional phrase in accordance with the custom of the Roman Church.

31. The obvious conclusion from the foregoing remarks is that in this matter the Apostolic See has sometimes agreed in certain circumstances and in consideration of the character of individual people to make specific concessions which it has refused to others in different circumstances among different peoples. So to complete the task which We have begun, We have only to show that this Apostolic See has kindly allowed an Oriental or Greek people to use a Latin ceremony to which they were devoted, particularly if they adopted this ceremony in ancient times and if the bishops did not oppose it at any time, but approved it either expressly or implicitly.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.
Quote
The Greeks are bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, but they are not bound to proclaim it in the Creed.
Cf. Benedict XIV Etsi Pastoralis, May 26, 1742:

Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #204 on: April 06, 2011, 08:14:48 PM »

Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?
No, at the present time the Vatican website only contains papal encyclicals that go back to the pontificate of Leo XIII.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #205 on: April 06, 2011, 08:16:08 PM »

Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

I don't know how many times Pope John Paul II recited the creed in its original form, but I believe it was quite a few.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #206 on: April 06, 2011, 08:17:34 PM »

I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?

No, I'm saying just the opposite.  As formulated by Latin theologians, the Filioque refers to the eternal, pre-temporal procession of the Spirit, and it is for precisely this reason that the Filioque doesn't impact a proper understanding of the Incarnation (as proposed by the original poster). 

As you know John 15:26 has sometimes been cited by Western theologians as biblical proof of the Filioque:  "When the Advocate comes whom I will send, the Spirit of Truth who comes from the Father, he will testify to me" (Jn 15:26).  Ditto John 14:26 and 16:7.  The Orthodox have traditionally responded that this texts refer to a temporal mission of the Spirit, specifically the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost.  This response presumes the distinction between the essential and economic Trinities, i.e., between theology and economy. 

This is the only point I am trying to make.  I am not trying to argue for the Filioque.  I am simply attempting to properly locate the Filioque within Trinitarian reflection. 
Orthodox sources - as I am sure you are aware - distinguish between procession (ekporeusis), which concerns the origin of the Spirit's hypostasis from the Father, with the sending (pempo) of the Spirit from the Father through the Son, which concerns the Spirit's shining forth, both temporally and eternally.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 08:25:16 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #207 on: April 06, 2011, 08:19:08 PM »

Does Catholic Church accept the creed without Filioque along with Filioque creed? And if it does is there anything in official documents of Vatican about this?

Thanks in advance

I don't know how many times Pope John Paul II recited the creed in its original form, but I believe it was quite a few.
I do not know the specific number of times either, but he always omitted the filioque when reciting the creed in common with Eastern Orthodox Christians.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 08:19:22 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #208 on: April 06, 2011, 08:23:03 PM »

I need to make two further comments:

....
So you're saying that the filioque may be interpreted as referring to the "within-time" procession of the H.S. from the Father and Son, not to the eternal procession of the H.S. from Father and Son?

No, I'm saying just the opposite.  As formulated by Latin theologians, the Filioque refers to the eternal, pre-temporal procession of the Spirit, and it is for precisely this reason that the Filioque doesn't impact a proper understanding of the Incarnation (as proposed by the original poster).
I agree that the late medieval filioque is not so much a Christological problem, but is instead a Triadological problem, because as formulated by the Carolingians, and the later by the Scholastics, it confuses the Holy Spirit's procession of origin from the Father alone, with His shining forth - both temporally and eternally - from the Father through the Son.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 08:26:01 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #209 on: April 06, 2011, 08:23:20 PM »

Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.

Have a look on papalencyclicals.net

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,393


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #210 on: April 06, 2011, 08:50:08 PM »

Azurestone, thanks for the link to Allatae Sunt. I don't think I've heard of it before. Do you happen to know whether it's on vatican.va?

It's also mentioned described in ESTI PASTORALIS, but I couldn't find the encyclical online.

Have a look on papalencyclicals.net

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm

Thank you for posting that. It explains much in terms of the thinking of the Latin bishopric's attitude towards the Greek Catholics when they became exposed to them in North America. Certainly at the time of the promulgation of this in 1755, Rome certainly did not view the Eastern Catholics as 'sui juris' Churches as they attempted to redefine them after Vatican II.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #211 on: April 07, 2011, 11:41:15 AM »

Well, so much for your lurking attempts!   laugh

As you have quoted, this categorizations as worded appear in modern writers.  As I said, I could not trace this past Rahner chronologically-speaking.  It has been used by modern writers as 'theology' and 'economy' but you still have not proved anything about my original objection, which is that these categories are not dogmatic.

Now, I was taught that we cannot know the unknowable, and that our only knowledge of the Trinity comes through observation of Divine activity to the extent we are capable.  However, I was also taught that the Trinity is a great mystery and that relying on categories and theologizing in the modern sense is dangerous.  These things are theolegoumena and best left alone, relying on the dogmatic statements of the Church.

I don't see why you are having difficulty understanding my position: such 'categories' cannot be used to amend the dogma of the Church.  All the Orthodox writers you quoted would agree with this.  This theory is secondary and not of like standing with dogma.  I don't care if you can show me X number of saints who taught this exact terminology: if this terminology and its usage is not confirmed by the Universal Church as dogma, it has secondary standing.

Perhaps this is an inherent problem between East and West, since the West has dogmatized many of its earlier theolegoumena, such as Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, Purgatory, etc. Thus, theolegoumena have a higher standing with dogma.

I am not insulting any particular saint or theologian when I say that his writings are theolegoumena, because some are helpful and some are not.  However, I will state firmly that any theolegoumena, no matter who wrote it, is being misused when it is used to twist or revise dogma in a new direction.  Thus, justifying heresy with theolegoumena requires an answer that differentiates between theory and fact.  These categories are theory, bu the Creed is fact.  The Church of Rome had no business tampering with the Teaching of the Universal Church.

Now, I think I have made it clear.  I believe if you go back through my writings here, you can see that I am not a reactionary when it comes to the Church of Rome.  I have no abiding hatred, and I have been privileged to call several pious Roman Catholics my friends and teachers.  I can even look on ministries of their community worthy of emulation and praise.  But, when it comes to dogma, there is no negotiation.

Yes, Mary, I think that there not much hope for reconciliation unless the Church of Rome becomes willing to reconsider and pull back from its additional dogmas.  I know that on the whole Orthodox Church is not willing to negotiate on the Creed and it will have to stand as it is.


But as I said, I know you must already know this, Fr Giryus, and have perhaps just momentarily forgotten it, perhaps because theology/economy distinction was invoked in a controversial discussion of the Filioque.     
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #212 on: April 07, 2011, 12:28:42 PM »

Allatae Sunt
Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Thank you; This is very nice link.

I heard from a Catholic that Filioque-ish support has roots in Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximus the Confessor and Cyril of Alexandria. I tried to gather some information. So far I did not get much but on of the Catholic source says the other way round, that Cappadocian Fathers teachings were directly opposite to Filioque. There's some mention of St. Maximus explaining the issue (that problem was secondary to Latin language's peculiarity). Could anybody point me to nice source (Orthodox as well as Catholic) to this issue please with quotes from those Saints?

Thank you again
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #213 on: April 07, 2011, 12:40:39 PM »


Yes, Mary, I think that there not much hope for reconciliation unless the Church of Rome becomes willing to reconsider and pull back from its additional dogmas.  I know that on the whole Orthodox Church is not willing to negotiate on the Creed and it will have to stand as it is.[/font][/size]


I am sorry that you take the position here that you do, but I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque.    So either they are wrong or you are wrong, or you both are right to some degree, but I certainly have been around long enough to know that your perspective is not the only one and may not, at this point, be the dominant one.

Logged

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

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #214 on: April 07, 2011, 01:12:25 PM »

I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #215 on: April 07, 2011, 03:09:06 PM »

Allatae Sunt Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755.
Thank you; This is very nice link.
I heard from a Catholic that Filioque-ish support has roots in Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximus the Confessor and Cyril of Alexandria. I tried to gather some information. So far I did not get much but on of the Catholic source says the other way round, that Cappadocian Fathers teachings were directly opposite to Filioque. There's some mention of St. Maximus explaining the issue (that problem was secondary to Latin language's peculiarity). Could anybody point me to nice source (Orthodox as well as Catholic) to this issue please with quotes from those Saints?
Thank you again

I posted from Maximus the Confessor here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,34923.msg553375.html#msg553375
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,626



« Reply #216 on: April 07, 2011, 04:13:18 PM »

I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.
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 #217 on: April 07, 2011, 05:37:03 PM »

I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 Smiley  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,626



« Reply #218 on: April 07, 2011, 05:45:09 PM »

Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.  Filioque defines relationships not essences:

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque. 

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

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).
What would St. Gregory have to say about the chart in the middle?

http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg
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 #219 on: April 07, 2011, 05:49:12 PM »

St. Gregory and I would most likely agree that the chart below is very poor catechesis and takes an easy and erroneous path to teaching what is quite simple to do without all the bows and curlicues...

As I noted in the other thread where you took this chart from...I was not taught this as a young person or as an older student of the faith.

So the only real case you have here is that there's poor catechesis in the Catholic Church...Well that's not precisely news.

Dear elijahmaria,
If I caused you to be confused, please accept my apology.

Oh that's ok.  I wasn't confused.  I was simply indicating you were wrong.  Filioque defines relationships not essences:

The western argument really is not that the Father and Son are one in essence, therefore filioque. 

As you can see below the exegesis of filioque actually comes from the Patristic teaching that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

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).
What would St. Gregory have to say about the chart in the middle?

http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/__MASTER/assets/Images/Catholic-Trinity-Illustration.jpg
Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #220 on: April 07, 2011, 06:43:14 PM »

Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  Wink

Agreed?   Cheesy


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 Smiley  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #221 on: April 07, 2011, 06:51:59 PM »

I don't know that we are bound to repeat the errors of the past, Father.  I am hoping that if the record at Florence is revisited and the accusations of Photius are found to be what I think they are, only accusations...I am hoping that the truth will prevail and we will learn to live with our differences without calling them heresy if they are indeed not heresy.

I think there are enough learned men in Orthodoxy leaning in that direction to tip the balance...but I cannot say that with absolute certitude, but it is a hope that I keep open.

Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  Wink

Agreed?   Cheesy


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 Smiley  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #222 on: April 07, 2011, 07:18:54 PM »

Yes, I also don't believe that anyone is bound to the errors of the past, which is why I hope that Rome will repeal its unilateral dogmatic proclamations.

Let's not forget, we are facing two issues: the content of the theological addition, then the irregular manner in which it was added.
 



I don't know that we are bound to repeat the errors of the past, Father.  I am hoping that if the record at Florence is revisited and the accusations of Photius are found to be what I think they are, only accusations...I am hoping that the truth will prevail and we will learn to live with our differences without calling them heresy if they are indeed not heresy.

I think there are enough learned men in Orthodoxy leaning in that direction to tip the balance...but I cannot say that with absolute certitude, but it is a hope that I keep open.

Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  Wink

Agreed?   Cheesy


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 Smiley  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #223 on: April 07, 2011, 07:30:41 PM »

I hope that the dogmatic definitions that have occurred during the schism are considered fairly on both sides and regularized so that they may be acceptable to all.  That does not mean that I think the west needs to abjure her teachings.

Also I don't really take any Orthodox believer too seriously when they speak to me of ecclesial "irregularities" that are all one sided.... Smiley

Yes, I also don't believe that anyone is bound to the errors of the past, which is why I hope that Rome will repeal its unilateral dogmatic proclamations.

Let's not forget, we are facing two issues: the content of the theological addition, then the irregular manner in which it was added.
 



I don't know that we are bound to repeat the errors of the past, Father.  I am hoping that if the record at Florence is revisited and the accusations of Photius are found to be what I think they are, only accusations...I am hoping that the truth will prevail and we will learn to live with our differences without calling them heresy if they are indeed not heresy.

I think there are enough learned men in Orthodoxy leaning in that direction to tip the balance...but I cannot say that with absolute certitude, but it is a hope that I keep open.

Dear Mary,

From your perspective, such people as you anonymously reference as 'some' are not heretics.  However, the Orthodox Church as a body, I think you will agree, does not accept the Filioque and considers it a heresy.  We generally call that group, 'virtually everyone else who says they are Orthodox.'  Wink

Agreed?   Cheesy


I am somewhat comforted to know that not all Orthodox clergy take your interpretive perspective, and some Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars seem to grasp the truth in filioque. 

What does this mean?
It means she knows some heretics who are posing as Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars (is scholarship different if you are a monk?), or she is attributing heretical views to Orthodox scholars and monk-scholars.

 Smiley  You hope it turns out that way but I don't think those are the only possible options.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #224 on: April 07, 2011, 07:39:49 PM »

Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy? Today's reading in the RCC : How if you don't believe in Moses you deny Christ. Friendly reminder of the message.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 07:41:55 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
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 0.226 seconds with 72 queries.