OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 07:26:40 AM *
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 32371 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,261



« Reply #225 on: April 07, 2011, 07:49:07 PM »

How did creationism get into this?  Huh
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #226 on: April 07, 2011, 07:50:10 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, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
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 #227 on: April 07, 2011, 07:56:15 PM »

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

Ummmm, no. It could very well be an indication that this is the authentic teaching of your "church".
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #228 on: April 07, 2011, 07:59:19 PM »

How did creationism get into this?  Huh

Yes I believe in Moses, if that makes me a creationist, because I refuse to trample on the literal meaning of scripture like the Greatest Saints of the Church who wrote our liturgies (ie : St. Basil who was a "creationist" as some would say, creationist liturgy you are celebrating) and most trusted commentaries on the scriptures then so be it. It came up because heresy puts a soul in danger and saying Genesis is "all a myth" is clearly putting others souls in danger. It is a Heresy.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 08:00:29 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #229 on: April 07, 2011, 07:59:34 PM »

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

I have actually seen indications very recently that the OO now are starting to swing back to a more conservative position on the Chalcedon issue (though this trend cannot be obvious and apparent yet because of how long and how far it swung in a liberal direction), and if that issue, in which there was even far more conciliation, is going back in that direction, then I think it's pretty much a given that a similar trend will be going on regarding the filioque.
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 #230 on: April 07, 2011, 08:03:15 PM »

Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy?

There are really two very significant facts that you are getting wrong just in this one sentence about Darwinian evolution. The first fact is that humans are actually classified as a form of ape, not as something that evolved out of apes. Second is the fact that it is not understood that humans evolved from any other currently existent apes, but rather from a common ancestor we had with them.

Amazing how much vitriol you direct against this system of thought despite clearly not understanding it.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,261



« Reply #231 on: April 07, 2011, 08:03:36 PM »

How did creationism get into this?  Huh

Yes I believe in Moses, if that makes me a creationist, because I refuse to trample on the literal meaning of scripture like the Greatest Saints of the Church who wrote our liturgies (ie : St. Basil who was a "creationist" as some would say, creationist liturgy you are celebrating) and most trusted commentaries on the scriptures then so be it. It came up because heresy puts a soul in danger and saying Genesis is "all a myth" is clearly putting others souls in danger. It is a Heresy.

I'm asking why you're posting this stuff in a thread that doesn't have anything to do with that? I understand that threads go off topic, but you're just pulling topics out of thin air...
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #232 on: April 07, 2011, 08:05:25 PM »

How did creationism get into this?  Huh

Yes I believe in Moses, if that makes me a creationist, because I refuse to trample on the literal meaning of scripture like the Greatest Saints of the Church who wrote our liturgies (ie : St. Basil who was a "creationist" as some would say, creationist liturgy you are celebrating) and most trusted commentaries on the scriptures then so be it. It came up because heresy puts a soul in danger and saying Genesis is "all a myth" is clearly putting others souls in danger. It is a Heresy.

You are presenting a false dilemma. Literalism and liberal mythological dismissivism (yes I just made that word up) are not the only two ways of interpreting scripture.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #233 on: April 07, 2011, 08:06:45 PM »

Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy?

There are really two very significant facts that you are getting wrong just in this one sentence about Darwinian evolution. The first fact is that humans are actually classified as a form of ape, not as something that evolved out of apes. Second is the fact that it is not understood that humans evolved from any other currently existent apes, but rather from a common ancestor we had with them.

Amazing how much vitriol you direct against this system of thought despite clearly not understanding it.

Elder Paisios warned that someday people would come to this, calling Christ's Mother and thus Christ a descendant of apes. Guess he was right...

Look, this might be the beginning of the "Anglican fall" of Roman Catholics unless they bury this garbage as soon as possible. Foundations, if you remove the foundation the whole building crumbles. The chief hierarch of the RCC is not a good person, he is not putting others interests first (Philippians 2:4). May the OC not make a similar dread mistake.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 08:15:09 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,261



« Reply #234 on: April 07, 2011, 08:08:31 PM »

If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  Tongue
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #235 on: April 07, 2011, 08:28:53 PM »

If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  Tongue

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
-Genesis 2:7

Now please...who would be unkind enough with their neighbor and so unconcerned with his salvation so as to throw away the first book of the bible that says man was created from dust (not apes mind you) ? Yes, the chief hierarch of the RCC did this. Todays reading in the RCC lectionary by coincidence :

 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-John 5:46-47

I advise people to consider changing jurisdiction to another Apostolic Church if this remains in place. We are talking about the foundation of the entire Bible here...
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 08:29:56 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #236 on: April 07, 2011, 08:35:39 PM »

If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  Tongue

We did either way. It's just a significantly longer process from dirt to human in Darwinian evolution.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 08:35:53 PM by deusveritasest » Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #237 on: April 07, 2011, 08:37:26 PM »

If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  Tongue

Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
-Genesis 2:7

Now please...who would be unkind enough with their neighbor and so unconcerned with his salvation so as to throw away the first book of the bible that says man was created from dust (not apes mind you) ? Yes, the chief hierarch of the RCC did this. Todays reading in the RCC lectionary by coincidence :

 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-John 5:46-47

I advise people to consider changing jurisdiction to another Apostolic Church if this remains in place. We are talking about the foundation of the entire Bible here...

Man still comes from dirt indirectly in Darwinian evolution.
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
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,261



« Reply #238 on: April 07, 2011, 08:41:44 PM »

If only we went back to saying that man came from dirt, the world would be so much better!  Tongue

We did either way. It's just a significantly longer process from dirt to human in Darwinian evolution.

I prefer to think of us as coming from pond scum in the evolutionary model--it just has a nicer ring to it.  Cool
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,117



« Reply #239 on: April 07, 2011, 11:55:39 PM »

Mary isn't staying on track here, obviously.  Again, she's confusing the dogmatic process with everything else.  It seems to happen quite a bit in this conversation, something I have been protesting but not getting through.

It is starting to look like a xerox.

Again, we also got another one of Mary's anonymous Keepers of Orthodox Odd Knowledge friends thrown in to boot.  Whew!  It is like riding the blade of a blender... around and around again.  [/dizzy]



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, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #240 on: April 08, 2011, 12:16:02 AM »

Which version of the OT in English translation goes wildly literal and calls "Adam" properly "Earthling"?

Mud Creature or Earth Creature or Dirt Creature wouldn't be bad.

And to the pond scum point, his predecessor would have been Swamp Thing.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #241 on: April 08, 2011, 12:42:46 AM »

Yes.  But I think she does have good intentions (I know, I know, I deserve ice balls being thrown at me for saying so...)  She is simply dedicated to the Bishop of Rome.  You know, as the result of a search I was doing, I was reading over at the one Catholic Forums site one person choosing between Orthodoxy and RCism that Orthodox simply "dodge" the evidence for the supremicy of Rome.  Of course, we have a few works on the subject that show otherwise.  However, the topic was St. Maximus the Confessor.   One must admit that St. Maximus did not like Constantinople and favored Rome.  In fact, St. Maximus for a time went to great lengths to defend a heretical pope of Rome (which afterwards he could not do anymore once the evidence piled up).  But he is a saint in that he still upheld the doctrine that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity (just as we find centuries before, the Quartodecimian saints were still held as Saints because, even though they held a practice that was contrary to their belief to some degree, they still held that Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day, the Lord's day).  We even have some local councils that outwardly expressed that the Bishop of Rome is not first, yet they are not available in English, and were superceded by others anyway.  In the Ecumenical Councils, there is only one Church that is called the "mother of all Churches," who was--before Rome--the primatial Church (i.e. Jerusalem), yet she still remains 4th in the diptychs.   Well, I am straying off the topic but it seems to me that ElijahMaria, although many of us (including me) see her as misled, yet at the same time, even Saints--or at least one, St. Maximus--went out of his way to defend a heretic (Honorius) who expressly contradicted his own teaching regarding monotheletism, and in the same tomos tried to defend the same heretic pope against accusations of heresy in terms of filioque.   Yet, even when doing so, he upheld the teachings of the Church, not seeing the inconsistancy that the Church herself would later see (and, indeed condemn).  Well, it is late, and I hope that my point is well received.      

Mary isn't staying on track here, obviously.  Again, she's confusing the dogmatic process with everything else.  It seems to happen quite a bit in this conversation, something I have been protesting but not getting through.

It is starting to look like a xerox.

Again, we also got another one of Mary's anonymous Keepers of Orthodox Odd Knowledge friends thrown in to boot.  Whew!  It is like riding the blade of a blender... around and around again.  [/dizzy]



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, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,117



« Reply #242 on: April 08, 2011, 01:32:29 AM »

No snow here in California, father!  You are very safe!  laugh

I'm not saying Mary is evil, nor am I saying all RCs are going to hell.  I happen to think that their teachings are not in keeping with those of the Church, while I know that they believe the opposite.  I don't say 'heretic!' with glee, nor do I shout insults.  While I do get frustrated with Mary at times, I do not bear any malice.


Yes.  But I think she does have good intentions (I know, I know, I deserve ice balls being thrown at me for saying so...)  She is simply dedicated to the Bishop of Rome.  You know, as the result of a search I was doing, I was reading over at the one Catholic Forums site one person choosing between Orthodoxy and RCism that Orthodox simply "dodge" the evidence for the supremicy of Rome.  Of course, we have a few works on the subject that show otherwise.  However, the topic was St. Maximus the Confessor.   One must admit that St. Maximus did not like Constantinople and favored Rome.  In fact, St. Maximus for a time went to great lengths to defend a heretical pope of Rome (which afterwards he could not do anymore once the evidence piled up).  But he is a saint in that he still upheld the doctrine that the Father is the sole source of the Trinity (just as we find centuries before, the Quartodecimian saints were still held as Saints because, even though they held a practice that was contrary to their belief to some degree, they still held that Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day, the Lord's day).  We even have some local councils that outwardly expressed that the Bishop of Rome is not first, yet they are not available in English, and were superceded by others anyway.  In the Ecumenical Councils, there is only one Church that is called the "mother of all Churches," who was--before Rome--the primatial Church (i.e. Jerusalem), yet she still remains 4th in the diptychs.   Well, I am straying off the topic but it seems to me that ElijahMaria, although many of us (including me) see her as misled, yet at the same time, even Saints--or at least one, St. Maximus--went out of his way to defend a heretic (Honorius) who expressly contradicted his own teaching regarding monotheletism, and in the same tomos tried to defend the same heretic pope against accusations of heresy in terms of filioque.   Yet, even when doing so, he upheld the teachings of the Church, not seeing the inconsistancy that the Church herself would later see (and, indeed condemn).  Well, it is late, and I hope that my point is well received.      

Mary isn't staying on track here, obviously.  Again, she's confusing the dogmatic process with everything else.  It seems to happen quite a bit in this conversation, something I have been protesting but not getting through.

It is starting to look like a xerox.

Again, we also got another one of Mary's anonymous Keepers of Orthodox Odd Knowledge friends thrown in to boot.  Whew!  It is like riding the blade of a blender... around and around again.  [/dizzy]



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, you do seem rather inconvenienced by the facts.
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #243 on: April 08, 2011, 01:10:43 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,284


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #244 on: April 08, 2011, 01:19:35 PM »

Can I call evolution which teaches the Mother of Christ descended from apes a heresy?

There are really two very significant facts that you are getting wrong just in this one sentence about Darwinian evolution. The first fact is that humans are actually classified as a form of ape, not as something that evolved out of apes. Second is the fact that it is not understood that humans evolved from any other currently existent apes, but rather from a common ancestor we had with them.

Amazing how much vitriol you direct against this system of thought despite clearly not understanding it.
But, not to defend creationism, Rafa is correct that this "common ancestor" that Homo sapiens shares with currently living apes, was, in fact, an ape.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2011, 01:20:18 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.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,284


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #245 on: April 08, 2011, 01:27:02 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
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 #246 on: April 08, 2011, 02:09:45 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.

The reason that I am absolutely against removal of filioque from the Creed and catechesis, which is what is recommended by our bilateral consultation here in the United States, is precisely because it does illuminate a part of our "knowledge" of Trinity that does not become so clearly illumined by any other teaching.

It is also now a long part of papal Catholic tradition and you don't just take something and dump it, particularly if it is true and real.

I appreciate what the good and kind Orthodox priests have said here to and about me.  I trust the two of you for your blessings and best intentions.  But I have come too far along this way to turn back simply because it would be easier for me and more pleasant.

And because I do grasp more of the teaching of my Church than I have ever done before I'd be another Professor Gilbert or some of the other Orthodox scholars and clergy who do see what I see but whose timing is off for pressing the point until we get past some of the other barriers to our renewed union. 

So even if I entered Orthodoxy, I would not then just turn around and start teaching something that I know not to be true.  Can't do...not don't want to...but simply can not do that.  My mind, heart and soul would not allow me to lie to you or to myself and that is what it would require for me to be "truly" Orthodox as you are Orthodox.  I beg your forgiveness and love you with all my heart, in Christ, because you want the best for me...and that is a great gift!!

M.

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #247 on: April 28, 2011, 01:06:53 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #248 on: April 28, 2011, 01:12:15 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #249 on: April 28, 2011, 01:19:52 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
I have witnessed this time and again as well.   Undecided
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #250 on: April 28, 2011, 01:31:06 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
I have witnessed this time and again as well.   Undecided

Thankfully and fortunately, that is not the position of *all* Eastern Orthodox--including this one!  Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #251 on: April 28, 2011, 01:47:07 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #252 on: April 28, 2011, 02:14:52 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.
For many Eastern Orthodox, their position is "If it's Latin, it's heretical."
I have witnessed this time and again as well.   Undecided

Thankfully and fortunately, that is not the position of *all* Eastern Orthodox--including this one!  Wink
Praise God! I could tell from your posts that you are not included in the Group I was discussing above. Smiley
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #253 on: April 28, 2011, 02:16:18 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
I have always understood this proceeding from both as from one to mean what St. John of Damascus means by the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son. If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #254 on: April 28, 2011, 02:19:42 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.
I think you are correct about us meaning different things when we refer to the Holy Spirit's procession. I have heard both the fact the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ and that Jesus had to ascend before the Holy Spirit could be sent cited to defend the filioque. Obviously this is not the same procession that the Eastern Orthodox are talking about. It almost seems as if procession has a double meaning for us (the sending of the Spirit in addition to the origin of the Spirit) whereas, in Eastern Orthodoxy, procession means only one thing (origin).

This is kind of exciting, at least to me, because it seems to indicate that we do not really profess entirely different beliefs when it comes to the Holy Spirit, but rather we just word it differently. After all, wouldn't most Eastern Orthodox agree that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son if the word proceed was used to indicate the sending of the Spirit and not just the origin?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,661


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #255 on: April 28, 2011, 02:23:20 PM »

It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  Tongue
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #256 on: April 28, 2011, 02:24:28 PM »

It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  Tongue
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #257 on: April 28, 2011, 02:28:01 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  Tongue
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. Wink
You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #258 on: April 28, 2011, 02:29:25 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."

Jetavan,

As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is not necessary to include every single belief in the creed. The last line of your post is a good example of this, because in the creed (in English) we say "who proceeds from the Father and the Son" even though we could say "who proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son". (See this question and the answers which follow.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #259 on: April 28, 2011, 02:29:40 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  Tongue
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. Wink
You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
Supremecy of a City State? <sigh> you are so confused, one doesn't even know where to begin with you... Oh wait, your old Lutheran Anti-Catholicism is a good place to start. It goes a long way in explaining why you are the way  you are.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,661


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #260 on: April 28, 2011, 02:30:12 PM »

I'm not a "you," being neither a part of my former church nor a chrismated member of my 'new' one.  Embarrassed I guess you could say I don't have a church home, officially. What the heck am I?  Huh

Or, we could all go round in circles, again and again... another 957 years.  Cry
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #261 on: April 28, 2011, 02:30:40 PM »

Since from our point of view the filioque is a clarification rather than a change in the creed is there any reason, from a RC standpoint, that it could not be dropped for the sake of promoting Catholic-Orthodox unity? I mean, the Eastern Catholic Churches don't say filioque and that is not an issue.
I don't see how dropping the filioque would work, if the doctrine remains on the books:

"He [i.e., the H.S.] proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration."
The Eastern Orthodox find this heretical? I thought the part that would be heretical in the EO view would be if we professed a dual spiration of the Spirit. This clearly says we do not believe such a thing.

The bolded portion is where the problem is.

To use biblical language, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Father and the Son and called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

When we (Orthodox) and the creed talk about procession, we talk about what the bible calls proceeding form the Father. The latin understaning of the filioque (please correct me if I'm wrong) deals with the sending forth of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son and being called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. When we (Catholics and Orthodox) say "proceed", we are talking about two different things.

Most Catholic instruction and aplogetiecs I've seen and heard deal primarily with defending the filioque (both as a teaching in general and its usage in the creed) without making a very clear distinction between how the Holy Spirit personally relates to the Father and how the Holy Spirit corporately relates to the Father and the Son together. The only real exception that I can think of to this is the one document that clarifies the difference between the greek and latin usage, which was drawn up for dialogue and not necessarily for instruction of the faithful.

Per usual you have a pretty clear grasp of what's what.  The adjustment that I would make to what you've said about the Catholic position is that the phrase "AS from one principle" is the recognition of the relationship of the Son to the Father as distinct from the relationship between the Father and the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit....and...here's the adjustment...it does so without negating the fact that the papal Church still recognizes that the Father is the author of all divinity. as do the Holy Fathers.  That means the Father is the anarch who is the source of all divinity...in unity and in hypostasis...in time and through eternity.

Don't know if that clarifies anything or not for you...it might.

M.

Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #262 on: April 28, 2011, 02:52:10 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
It took me a long time to figure out why the clause was bad- not just in terms of wanting to look into Orthodoxy, but to sit and think about the theological confusion of the clause. Once I did, and I started to do some reading about the early Church, it made a lot more sense to me. If it wasn't in the original version, and it rested on confusing or inaccurate terms, there was no need for it later. I hope someday the RCC will seriously consider returning to the first version. What a relief it would be to have at least this one issue dead and gone.  Tongue
And once you all accept Papal Primacay, our problems will begin to melt away. Wink
You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
Supremecy of a City State? <sigh> you are so confused, one doesn't even know where to begin with you...

Start with distinguishing the Lateran Treaty from the Donation of Constantine, besides that Constantine's name was forged on the "Donation" but Mussolini actually signed the Lateran with your supreme pontiff.

Oh wait, your old Lutheran Anti-Catholicism is a good place to start. It goes a long way in explaining why you are the way  you are.
I'm afraid you're going to go older than that, further back in the history of the Papal States:
Quote
But even after this, John still could not make up his mind to break all his relations with the Pope. For about three years the Church of Constantinople had no Patriarch after the death of Metrophanes, and the vacant see was given to Gregory Mamma, the Emperor's confessor, and one of the most active causes of the Florentine union. He himself wrote objections to Mark's writings and began a dispute in Constantinople between the principal defenders of Orthodoxy and the Latin litterati The Pope named him for his zeal in the Latin cause, Patriarch also of the Latin party then in Constantinople.  But notwithstanding all his efforts, as the Pope himself writes, he could not proclaim and enact the decree passed in Florence.  So strong was the aversion of the clergy and people to the Latin union, which was attained at the sacrifice of Orthodoxy! The Bishops and clergy of Constantinople demanded, that an Ecumenical Council should be held in Constantinople itself to terminate all the evil caused by the adherents of the union [the signers at Florence made their signatures contingent on a Council being held in the East to confirm Florence].  But the Emperor John died (Oct. 31, 1448) before he had time to satisfy these demands; at all events before his death he rejected all union with the Church of Rome [sic].  At last the innermost wishes of the orthodox pastors and people were fulfilled. A year and a half after Constantine's accession to the throne of Byzantium, three Eastern Patriarchs in whose name, though without their consent, the Florentine unorthodox "decree" was signed, viz., [Pope] Philotheus of Alexandria, [Patriarch] Dorotheus of Antioch [i.e. the predecessors of my primates] and Theophanes of Jerusalem, assembled in Constantinople with many Metropolitans and Bishops to quiet the disturbed Church. Assembling a Council in the Church of S. Sophia in Constantinople, they deprived Gregory Mamma of his patriarchal throne and appointed the Orthodox Athanasius in his place, and then in the name of all the Eastern Church rejected the decree of the Council of Florence which they convicted as having acted contrary to the orthodox faith, and accused the Church of Rome of many digressions from the ancient rules and rites of the Church Ecumenical Gregory soon after this left as a fugitive for Rome (August, 1451.).
The history of the Council of Florence By Aleksandr Vasilýevich Gorski
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA175&dq=Patriarch%20of%20Antioch%20Council%20of%20Florence&cd=1&id=z_IQAAAAIAAJ&output=text
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
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,522



« Reply #263 on: April 28, 2011, 03:02:06 PM »

If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.

I don't really see it taught like that in the RC, unless I'm misunderstanding something, but that the Father and the Son together is the one source.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #264 on: April 28, 2011, 03:11:26 PM »

If the Father really is the ultimate source, then it is one source.

I don't really see it taught like that in the RC, unless I'm misunderstanding something, but that the Father and the Son together is the one source.

That is not accurate.  What you are suggesting, my Church, would call heresy.  So yes.  In this case you are misunderstanding something.
Logged

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 #265 on: April 28, 2011, 03:55:38 PM »

The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #266 on: April 28, 2011, 04:07:53 PM »

Cause of divinity in reality is one thing, and the creature's act of identifying and defining source(s) of hypostatic relationship is quite something else...

And what you have posted is so far out of context so as to be elliptically meaningless in present form.

The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 04:10:00 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #267 on: April 28, 2011, 04:32:59 PM »

Christos Voskrese!
The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.
Cause of divinity in reality is one thing, and the creature's act of identifying and defining source(s) of hypostatic relationship is quite something else...

And what you have posted is so far out of context so as to be elliptically meaningless in present form.
Care to put some meat on that bone and back it up with the alleged missing "context"?
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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #268 on: April 28, 2011, 07:05:25 PM »

The Roman Church teaches that the Spirit ". . . proceeds from both [i.e., the Father and the Son] eternally as from one principle and a single spiration," and so the Father and the Son ". . . should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause . . . of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit" [Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Editor), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London and Washington, D.C.: Sheed & Ward, and Georgetown University Press, 1990), pages 526-527].

This teaching is of course contrary to the doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

Hi Apotheoun. As long as we've got you here, maybe you can answer something I've been wondering: how much of the RCC teaching about the filioque is considered dogma?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,026



« Reply #269 on: April 28, 2011, 07:06:37 PM »

You mean Vatican supremacy, and yes, hellfire is quite hot to melt pretty much antyhing. Except the Orthodox confession of the Catholic Church.
Supremecy of a City State?

Nice. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 0.216 seconds with 72 queries.