OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 20, 2014, 02:04:14 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 33013 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 37,640



« Reply #405 on: May 03, 2011, 06:21:01 PM »

Christ is risen!
I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.


Frankly my Church teaches what was taught at Florence today.  The difficulty is that it was misunderstood then and it is misunderstood now.

Who the dickens are you to gainsay that?...
Someone Orthodox, at least on this issue.

No, we don't misunderstand. We understand, and therefore reject.
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 #406 on: May 03, 2011, 06:58:03 PM »

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.


Frankly my Church teaches what was taught at Florence today.  The difficulty is that it was misunderstood then and it is misunderstood now.

Who the dickens are you to gainsay that?...

M.

Mary, the phrase "eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son" was indicative enough in and of itself and then the Orthodox have shown that the "as from one principle" was explained as the same as the Greek causation. You, OTOH, never provided any real rational to explain why this interpretation is incorrect, but have simply been reduced to sputterings of how it simply is the way you say it is. There isn't any more dialogue to be had here if you're going to continue that way.
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 #407 on: May 03, 2011, 06:58:45 PM »

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.

You're probably right.
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 #408 on: May 03, 2011, 07:01:13 PM »

The EOs need to drop their whole "everything latin is evil" mantra

This is largely a fabrication. I don't see how that could be accurate if they're willing to adopt a Latin liturgy. You guys just like throwing that idea around because you think it can help you discredit those who criticize your doctrine.
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 #409 on: May 03, 2011, 07:02:11 PM »

as long as they remain so anti-Latin and object to everything in the West simply because it is Western

That almost never happens.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 07:02:25 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 #410 on: May 03, 2011, 07:06:07 PM »

I don't know why or how you think you know so much better but my Church explicitly taught and teaches that the divinity originates from the Father

Yes, but then it turns around and says that because the Son receives all that the Father is that He must share in the spiration of the Spirit, and therefore reasons that the Father is still the source simply because the Son's being and therefore His ability to participate in the Spiration of the Spirit is dependent on the Father's Begetting Him.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 07:07:03 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 #411 on: May 03, 2011, 07:09:57 PM »

Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.

LOL. So you say that they mean the same thing and the Greeks are the ones who are confused?  Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #412 on: May 03, 2011, 07:12:48 PM »

There is no revision.  That's fact.

It is? Where is the evidence of this supposed fact?

You aren't really in a position to judge in any event.

How so?
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 #413 on: May 03, 2011, 07:14:30 PM »

A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

And in this thread, it seems to me that the RCs, for the most part, have been the more accommodating and willing to compromise, as it were, than the EOs here.

IIRC, even Papist would be for the removal of the filioque with the caveat that understanding of it within RC theology be allowed to remain, if it were to help bring the RC and OC closer together.

In terms of division, I just don't see the filioque being a strong reason, especially at the grass roots level, for the division between the Churches today. Papal authority much so.

If in the letter of this thread, the EOs might have the upper hand, it seems to me that the RCs have demonstrated a greater degree of charity and willingness to compromise.



 


As to whether the Son participates in the ontological causation of the Spirit, there can be no compromise.
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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #414 on: May 03, 2011, 07:17:52 PM »

A pause, especially in light of Melodist's recent post.

After all the sound and fury of this thread, can folks chime in on whether they believe that difference is primarily an unhappy linguistic misunderstanding compounded by surrounding complications of the time and further complicated by the time the RC and OC spent out of touch with each other?

Or is the difference such a stumbling block in and of itself?

After reading this thread and the limited writings by EO authors on this issue, I've come to believe the former.

And in this thread, it seems to me that the RCs, for the most part, have been the more accommodating and willing to compromise, as it were, than the EOs here.

IIRC, even Papist would be for the removal of the filioque with the caveat that understanding of it within RC theology be allowed to remain, if it were to help bring the RC and OC closer together.

In terms of division, I just don't see the filioque being a strong reason, especially at the grass roots level, for the division between the Churches today. Papal authority much so.

If in the letter of this thread, the EOs might have the upper hand, it seems to me that the RCs have demonstrated a greater degree of charity and willingness to compromise.



 


As to whether the Son participates in the ontological causation of the Spirit, there can be no compromise.

And I have yet to see that any of the RCs saying that here.

Let's pick two:

EM and Papist.

Do you believe that the Son ontologically participates in any way in the causation of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No. Let's make this simple.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 07:19:56 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #415 on: May 03, 2011, 07:20:47 PM »

This whole thing reminds me of the confusion over the Council of Chalcedon

Me too: another case where I believe the original document was not purely Orthodox.

It took a long time, but the EO and OO seemed to figure out that their actual beliefs were not very different,

That is because of the revision of Constantinople II, not because Chalcedon was actually Orthodox.

Christ made one church. Not two, not 30,000, one. It seems sometimes that people want to ignore each other, instead of trying to heal the body of Christ.

The Body of Christ is healthy and operating without those who broke off from Her.

If you don't think your side is the one that needs fixing, then you should at the very least want to bring your former brethren back into the fold. Christians should want to bring people to Christ.

I do want these parties to be united! Unfortunately the conversation is being conducted in a dishonest manner such that those who have more conservative interpretations of the Latin doctrines are treated as if they obviously don't want the Latins to return, which is just a logical catastrophe.

We can sit here and call each other heretics forever. Everyone, again, is forgetting that the excommunications of 1054 of both churches against each other were rescinded in 1965.

Not all EO even recognize that action. Those anathemas became symbolic of anathemas against the Latins' heretical doctrines and should not be lifted until they abandon those doctrines.
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 #416 on: May 03, 2011, 07:22:54 PM »

EM

We already know what she has to say.  Roll Eyes

But I have seen indications that there are some on here who will answer in the affirmative. So I would prefer to hear from Wyatt, Chris (Papist), and Peter.
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
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #417 on: May 03, 2011, 07:25:11 PM »

EM

We already know what she has to say.  Roll Eyes

But I have seen indications that there are some on here who will answer in the affirmative. So I would prefer to hear from Wyatt, Chris (Papist), and Peter.

Well OK, but let's keep it: yes or no. And I am interested in what EM has to say. I am not sure, since evidently so many EOs keep arguing with her.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 07:25:48 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #418 on: May 03, 2011, 07:30:20 PM »

She has stated repeatedly that she believes that the Son does not participate in the ontological causation of the Spirit and that this is supposedly the teaching of the Roman 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #419 on: May 03, 2011, 07:30:56 PM »


And I have yet to see that any of the RCs saying that here.

Let's pick two:

EM and Papist.

Do you believe that the Son ontologically participates in any way in the causation of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No. Let's make this simple.

 Smiley

Not at all.  Nor is that the understanding of the teaching from the Council of Florence. In fact it has always been taught that the Father is the source of ALL divinity.  And that is what I believe in terms of the ontological causation of the Son and the Holy Spirit.  

As I noted earlier, there is nothing in the verb "cause" in English or in Latin that necessitates or obligates any meaning of origination in any way.  Not all causation is inherently ontological or originate.
Logged

orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #420 on: May 03, 2011, 07:35:03 PM »

No, we don't misunderstand. We understand, and therefore reject.

Christ is Risen!

ialmisry,

Help me out. I respect your stuff here both in content and style, at least to the degree I understand it. Often it is just Greek to me or whichever of the other 12 languages you speak that I don't.

I've read around this subject. I've sorta followed this thread. Frankly, the noise to signal ratio is rather high.

So save a catechumen from falling into heterodoxy in your opinion. Many EOs "authorities" I've read and listened to just don't see the issue as black and white as you do. They tend to fall into the linguistic problem exacerbated by history and so forth camp.

Do you think the filioque strikes at the Son being involved somehow in the ontological origin of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore do you think 95% of RCs would agree or even understand what that means.

Would you consider an OC holding the view that the difference is primarily linguistic as heterodox or at least flirting with it.

Try to be as simple and unsophisticated as possible, so that I have a better chance of understanding.

Thanks.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #421 on: May 03, 2011, 07:36:21 PM »

She has stated repeatedly that she believes that the Son does not participate in the ontological causation of the Spirit and that this is supposedly the teaching of the Roman church.

God forbid that she might actually represent some of the actual understanding of the RCC!
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 07:37:23 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #422 on: May 03, 2011, 07:38:09 PM »

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

I don't know about St. John, but fwiw this article says that: "in 1136 and 1234, conciliatory solutions were suggested by the Orthodox, such as the phrase 'the spirit proceeds from the father through the son'"... I wonder how common such suggestions were, or if this was a rare aberration...

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).

Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?

And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation. Wherefore the Holy Spirit is the perfecter of the creation of the universe. All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.

I was not suspicious that this was not an Orthodox doctrine (actually I have advocated it being such here before and attacked by certain "Father alone" hardliners), but I had just never heard it come from John of Damascus. I only ever remembered hearing "from the Father, resting in the Son" from him. I did not ask with the intent to de-legitimize the phrase, but rather simply out of curiosity (though I probably disagree with what Papist meant by 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
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,427


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #423 on: May 03, 2011, 07:38:57 PM »

Quote from: deusveritasest
Not all EO even recognize that action. Those anathemas became symbolic of anathemas against the Latins' heretical doctrines and should not be lifted until they abandon those doctrines.

 Roll Eyes

In other words, "It's a decision with which I don't agree, therefore, I will pretend that others don't, either- and ignore the ones who do." (Both of the churches represented by those included in the 1965 event comprise millions upon millions of people, by the way.)  Tongue

Since when does a decision require unanimity from all people on the Earth? I thought the Orthodox didn't have such a system anyway? Wasn't it the consensus of the Fathers that counted?

And since the two leaders who undertook the 1965 decision were the leaders of the same churches that had excommunicated each other to begin with, they were precisely the ones who had reason to do that.

Yes, many do recognize it. Like it or not. A thing does not cease to be legitimate because it's not your favorite. It's funny that the people who do recognize the decision, suddenly don't count for you.

As for 'came to be symbolic,' you are entitled to your opinion, but that does not make it fact. You say so. I wasn't aware that ideas stick to each other like iron shavings to a magnet. You can't add things to a bill just by thought- you have to write these things. It's the way church business is done.

The excommunications were taken away in 1965, but you can't pretend that never happened. Sorry.
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/
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #424 on: May 03, 2011, 07:40:37 PM »

She has stated repeatedly that she believes that the Son does not participate in the ontological causation of the Spirit and that this is supposedly the teaching of the Roman church.

God forbid that she might actually represent some of the actual understanding of the RCC!

That would be nice if she did. Unfortunately I think she is someone with an Orthodox Triadology trying to force a space for herself in a church where one does not and cannot exist.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 07:40:45 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 #425 on: May 03, 2011, 07:51:54 PM »

In other words, "It's a decision with which I don't agree, therefore, I will pretend that others don't, either- and ignore the ones who do."

No.

"I will pretend that others don't" implies that I am making up the idea that there are other who condemn the lifting of the anathemas. I am most certainly not making this up. There are probably dozens of them just on this forum. I could start a thread asking them to register themselves if you are so suspicious?

And no, I am not ignoring those who do agree with the lifting of the anathemas. I'm just confident that they are wrong.

Since when does a decision require unanimity from all people on the Earth?

It certainly doesn't require it, particularly it doesn't require those who have fallen into heresy. However, it is clear that the dissidents have not fallen into heresy. More fellow churches should have been consulted because of the collegial spirit of the Church. But Constantinople just chose to ignore the fact that these anathemas have become for many of the faithful symbolic of the errors of Rome so that it could unilaterally lift the anathemas between it and Rome because it was convenient.

Wasn't it the consensus of the Fathers that counted?

In many cases, whether there is a consensus, and if there is what it is is quite often disagreed upon and argued among the Orthodox. I just happen to be of the party that believes that the lifting of the anathemas violates the consensus of the Fathers.

And since the two leaders who undertook the 1965 decision were the leaders of the same churches that had excommunicated each other to begin with, they were precisely the ones who had reason to do that.

That's a very legalistic approach. You are not caring to look at the spirit of the anathemas and what they have come to represent for the faithful.

Yes, many do recognize it. Like it or not.

I know and never suggested otherwise.

A thing does not cease to be legitimate because it's not your favorite.

I know this also. But I think there is more reason than that to believe that it is illegitimate.

I wasn't aware that ideas stick to each other like iron shavings to a magnet. You can't add things to a bill just by thought- you have to write these things. It's the way church business is done.

The fact that the anathema against Rome has come to be symbolic of all its errors is frequently evidenced in articles accounting hard-liners to refer to them in this way. IIRC, such was done just in the recent Cyprus debacle.

The excommunications were taken away in 1965, but you can't pretend that never happened. Sorry.

The letter of the anathema was taken away but the spirit of it has remained in the minds of many of the Orthodox.
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 #426 on: May 03, 2011, 07:57:11 PM »

ialmisry,

Since I feel I could help you (if you're open to it), and because Isa essentially endorsed my position on this issue, I feel it might be helpful if I try to respond to this. I apologize if I offend you by doing so.

Many EOs "authorities" I've read and listened to just don't see the issue as black and white as you do. They tend to fall into the linguistic problem exacerbated by history and so forth camp.

There are many white-washers out there these days. I think another issue where Isa and I would probably agree on is that there are now many false ecumenists who are trying to sell out the faith and that many of those who take said position on the filioque are in this camp.

Do you think the filioque strikes at the Son being involved somehow in the ontological origin of the Holy Spirit.

Dozens if not hundreds of posts I've read from him seem to imply this understanding. And I would agree with his analysis, especially in light of Lyons II and Florence.

Furthermore do you think 95% of RCs would agree or even understand what that means.

95% of RCs probably don't even have any opinion what-so-ever on this topic, so it's not really worth taking them into consideration. Let's just consider the 5% who actually have an opinion. I would take a guess that at least 75% of them would espouse that the Son participates in the ontological spiration of the Spirit because the Father gives everything He is to the Son.
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #427 on: May 03, 2011, 08:08:57 PM »

I know we are being rhetorical in our numbers, so we should let 3.75% of RCs shape the debate? I bet the number is lower than that.

Not that this is a persuasive argument in anyway, just sayin'.

Again I am curious to hear the RC "hardliners" weigh in with their simple "yes" or "no".
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #428 on: May 03, 2011, 08:12:24 PM »

Again I am curious to hear the RC "hardliners" weigh in with their simple "yes" or "no".

I'm wondering if they are not avoiding doing so because then many more Orthodox would realize that people like Isa and me are actually interpreting their doctrine properly.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #429 on: May 03, 2011, 08:29:53 PM »

Bump: and just as a reminder, I do not speak out of my own mouth, but out of the formal teachings that I have received at the feet of some very orthodox Catholic master teachers in ecclesial history and doctrinal theology.


And I have yet to see that any of the RCs saying that here.

Let's pick two:

EM and Papist.

Do you believe that the Son ontologically participates in any way in the causation of the Holy Spirit? Yes or No. Let's make this simple.

 Smiley

Not at all.  Nor is that the understanding of the teaching from the Council of Florence. In fact it has always been taught that the Father is the source of ALL divinity.  And that is what I believe in terms of the ontological causation of the Son and the Holy Spirit.  

As I noted earlier, there is nothing in the verb "cause" in English or in Latin that necessitates or obligates any meaning of origination in any way.  Not all causation is inherently ontological or originate.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #430 on: May 03, 2011, 08:46:44 PM »

Guess, with this subject, I've had my fill, OK?

What, you don't think we need another half dozen threads about the filioque?

 Grin
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #431 on: May 03, 2011, 08:48:59 PM »

I just don't get this sort of argument. If there has been a development or a more clear understanding over time within the RC (revisionist, is just baiting) which removes much of the possible misunderstandings of the past, why is that a problem?

"Revisionist is just baiting"? No, it indicates that I believe that they have revised their historical dogmatic teaching.

Why is this a problem? It isn't totally problematic. Them coming to a more Orthodox doctrine is certainly not a bad thing. What is the bad thing is them insisting that a heretical document was indeed Orthodox and that to have reunion we must accept that, when we are convinced that it was in fact heretical. If there was reunion between the RC and EO, even if the RC had come to an Orthodox interpretation of Florence, I think Florence must be abandoned because the Church determined that it was heretical and their interpretation of it is delusional. I say the same about Chalcedon. The problem is that the Orthodox still view the dogmatic definition of Florence as heretical and therefore it cannot have any place in the faith of the Church.


Frankly my Church teaches what was taught at Florence today.  The difficulty is that it was misunderstood then and it is misunderstood now.

Who the dickens are you to gainsay that?...

M.

Mary, the phrase "eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son" was indicative enough in and of itself and then the Orthodox have shown that the "as from one principle" was explained as the same as the Greek causation. You, OTOH, never provided any real rational to explain why this interpretation is incorrect, but have simply been reduced to sputterings of how it simply is the way you say it is. There isn't any more dialogue to be had here if you're going to continue that way.

Rather than "here", what about "there"?

(Saint Paul’s College in DC that is.)
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #432 on: May 03, 2011, 08:50:03 PM »

Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.

LOL. So you say that they mean the same thing and the Greeks are the ones who are confused?  Roll Eyes

Where did he say that "from" and "through" mean the same thing?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #433 on: May 03, 2011, 08:51:19 PM »

There are many white-washers out there these days.

Yes. In fact, I would have expected that Catholics and Orthodox could agree that "false ecumenism" (or whatever you want to call it) is a problem; but my experience on this forum suggests otherwise.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #434 on: May 03, 2011, 08:57:19 PM »

Christos resurrexit!
Where did John of Damascus say "from the Father through the Son"?
"And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of his divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to himself, but different from that of generation" (Exact exposition of the Orthodox faith 12).

"I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word [the Son] coming from himself and, through his Word, the Spirit issuing from him" (Dialogue Against the Manicheans 5 [A.D. 728]).


Yes, that Latin preposition confusion of "from" and "through."
It's not a confusion in Latin. It's only a confusion for the Greeks.

LOL. So you say that they mean the same thing and the Greeks are the ones who are confused?  Roll Eyes

Where did he say that "from" and "through" mean the same thing?

In other places and times. We've had this conversation a few times before already.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #435 on: May 03, 2011, 09:12:54 PM »

Apotheoun is faithfully representing the teachings and beliefs of his Church and his bishops and is showing a great deal of grace under fire from some of those that consider him a coreligionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoghby_Initiative

Signed by 24 out of 26 bishops.
I don't consider him a correligionist. I think  that he has rejected the faith and put himself outside of communion with the Church, whether he thinks he has or hasn't.

You're probably right.

Papist and deusveritasest,

If the Melkite Catholic Church has no problem remaining in full communion with Pope Benedict, and Pope Benedict has no problem remaining in full communion with the Melkite Catholic Church, then why do you two have a problem with it?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #436 on: May 03, 2011, 09:18:39 PM »

I think the Roman Church will be focusing of East and West reunion before picking a fight with the Melkites.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #437 on: May 03, 2011, 09:18:57 PM »

It would seem to be; let's remember that the formal Schism didn't come about until 1054, although ultra-purists may insist on something else- but 1054 is the date on which most historians agree; and yet that was hundreds of years after the appearance of the actual clause. There was not a one day-one year-one step jump from the filioque to *kaboom* the Schism. It wasn't an all-of-a-sudden thing. We hardly ever hear people mention that, but there it is: the final split actually took a long time.

Another detail that supports what you are saying here is that, when the Pope first allowed the filioque-addition to the creed, in 1014, the Patriarch of Constantinople dropped his name from the diptychs but didn't break communion.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #438 on: May 03, 2011, 09:20:42 PM »

And it is not just the Melkites either. The same position was taken by Patriarch Lubomyr of the UGCC.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #439 on: May 03, 2011, 09:22:27 PM »

Again I am curious to hear the RC "hardliners" weigh in with their simple "yes" or "no".

I'm wondering if they are not avoiding doing so because then many more Orthodox would realize that people like Isa and me are actually interpreting their doctrine properly.

Or it could be that they live lives untethered to the internet and possibly more fully and need more than a few hours to respond.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 09:22:49 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #440 on: May 03, 2011, 09:22:57 PM »

It would seem to be; let's remember that the formal Schism didn't come about until 1054, although ultra-purists may insist on something else- but 1054 is the date on which most historians agree; and yet that was hundreds of years after the appearance of the actual clause. There was not a one day-one year-one step jump from the filioque to *kaboom* the Schism. It wasn't an all-of-a-sudden thing. We hardly ever hear people mention that, but there it is: the final split actually took a long time.

Another detail that supports what you are saying here is that, when the Pope first allowed the filioque-addition to the creed, in 1014, the Patriarch of Constantinople dropped his name from the diptychs but didn't break communion.

Not sure how you can be in communion if your not in the Diptyks. Can one of the more knowledgeable Orthodox posters speak to this point as I am curious.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #441 on: May 03, 2011, 09:23:55 PM »

I think the Roman Church will be focusing of East and West reunion before picking a fight with the Melkites.

The Vatican wasn't shy about raising objections to the Zohgby Initiative, but of course that's a far cry from breaking-off communion with the Melkites.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ilyazhito
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 889



« Reply #442 on: May 03, 2011, 10:24:04 PM »

Not only is the Filioque theologically unsound, its a mistranslation. In greek the word is ekpouremenon, but the West may have meant proienai.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #443 on: May 03, 2011, 10:55:50 PM »

In greek the word is ekpouremenon, but the West may have meant proienai.

Not just "may have" but did.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #444 on: May 03, 2011, 11:47:27 PM »

ialmisry,

Since I feel I could help you (if you're open to it), and because Isa essentially endorsed my position on this issue, I feel it might be helpful if I try to respond to this. I apologize if I offend you by doing so.

Many EOs "authorities" I've read and listened to just don't see the issue as black and white as you do. They tend to fall into the linguistic problem exacerbated by history and so forth camp.

There are many white-washers out there these days. I think another issue where Isa and I would probably agree on is that there are now many false ecumenists who are trying to sell out the faith and that many of those who take said position on the filioque are in this camp.

I agree. The "linguistic confusion" approach seems somewhat anti-theistic and illogical.

If St. Theodore the Recruit could appear to a bishop to warn him that the food in the marketplace had been defiled with blood offered to idols, why would God do nothing to prevent the breakup of the Church over a big misunderstanding? I mean, honestly, if it was nothing, God would have done something to prevent it, I would think. He has intervened in far more spectacular ways over far more trivial matters.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2011, 11:48:58 PM by bogdan » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #445 on: May 04, 2011, 08:26:38 AM »

In greek the word is ekpouremenon, but the West may have meant proienai.

Not just "may have" but did.

My opinion would be that this is what needs to be corrected concerning the creed.
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 #446 on: May 04, 2011, 11:05:41 AM »

In greek the word is ekpouremenon, but the West may have meant proienai.

Not just "may have" but did.

My opinion would be that this is what needs to be corrected concerning the creed.

Not really because the Latin Creed intends both and can indicate both with the Latin verb which does not mean ekpouremenon exclusively but does not rule it out...So that the Creed with Filioque in Latin means both from the Father as Source of the Divinity...and from the Son [who is not the Source of the Divinity] and it does not need to change verbs to do that.

So there really is no need to change anything.
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #447 on: May 04, 2011, 01:57:17 PM »

In greek the word is ekpouremenon, but the West may have meant proienai.

Not just "may have" but did.

My opinion would be that this is what needs to be corrected concerning the creed.

Not really because the Latin Creed intends both and can indicate both with the Latin verb which does not mean ekpouremenon exclusively

Surely in this age of information and communication, someone could find a way of bringing clarity to the Creed in latin to better reflect what the fathaers at the council proclaimed in teir statement.

Quote
but does not rule it out...So that the Creed with Filioque in Latin means both from the Father as Source of the Divinity...and from the Son [who is not the Source of the Divinity] and it does not need to change verbs to do that.

This is the cause of much confusion. One verb is applied once to two nouns in the same phrase and is supposed to mean something different to each one without drawing any kind of distinction between the two? The way it is written implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same exact manner in which He proceeds from the Father.

Quote
So there really is no need to change anything.

There needs to be an agreed on statement of faith. We don't have that, so something does need to change, whether the filioque is just plain dropped, the Creed is changed in latin to clarify ekporeusis from the Father, or the phrase "through the Son" is adopted.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 01:57:39 PM by Melodist » 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 #448 on: May 04, 2011, 02:05:50 PM »

In greek the word is ekpouremenon, but the West may have meant proienai.

Not just "may have" but did.

My opinion would be that this is what needs to be corrected concerning the creed.

Not really because the Latin Creed intends both and can indicate both with the Latin verb which does not mean ekpouremenon exclusively

Surely in this age of information and communication, someone could find a way of bringing clarity to the Creed in latin to better reflect what the fathaers at the council proclaimed in teir statement.

Quote
but does not rule it out...So that the Creed with Filioque in Latin means both from the Father as Source of the Divinity...and from the Son [who is not the Source of the Divinity] and it does not need to change verbs to do that.

This is the cause of much confusion. One verb is applied once to two nouns in the same phrase and is supposed to mean something different to each one without drawing any kind of distinction between the two? The way it is written implies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same exact manner in which He proceeds from the Father.

Quote
So there really is no need to change anything.

There needs to be an agreed on statement of faith. We don't have that, so something does need to change, whether the filioque is just plain dropped, the Creed is changed in latin to clarify ekporeusis from the Father, or the phrase "through the Son" is adopted.

It should be sufficient for the Roman rite to explain itself and then we can all move on in our respective traditions.  How different is that from variations in traditions within Orthodoxy?

Won't Orthodoxy DEMAND that they keep their traditions should there be any resumption of communion?...I would say definitely so...

So....
Logged

Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #449 on: May 04, 2011, 02:51:29 PM »

It should be sufficient for the Roman rite to explain itself and then we can all move on in our respective traditions.  How different is that from variations in traditions within Orthodoxy?

Won't Orthodoxy DEMAND that they keep their traditions should there be any resumption of communion?...I would say definitely so...

So....

Changing a part of the Creed to say something that it was never intended to say is not exactly a "local variation".

If Rome wants celibate priests - fine as long as they don't try to impose it as some kind of universal rule, unleaved bread in the Eucharist - it's a great way of proclaiming Christ as the Lamb of God perfect and sinless (I don't know how many Orthodox would agree with me, but it is my opinion),  priests without beards - we have them too (I know one), entirely different liturgical rites - they can be beautiful as long as they're done in reverence and respect, statues - not capable of fully expressing everything that can be expressed in an icon but serves the same purpose (another one I might be in the minority of saying), local venerations (Sacred Heart, etc) - as long as it is kept theological and not given over to superstition (promises associated with saying the rosary and wearing the scapular, etc), feasts that are particular to western tradition (Corpus Christi, Christ the King, etc) - nothing wrong with proclaiming Christ as the true King over all, the movement of All Saints to nov 1 - a bold and wonderful statement against paganism, Apostles Creed - wonderful statement of faith, filioque as a theology (according to the patristic understanding) - nothing wrong as theology but not what the fathers addressed in 381.

There is nothing wrong with local variations of custom, but local custom should not take precedence over universal statements of faith.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
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 0.169 seconds with 72 queries.