OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 04:26:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error  (Read 34350 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #450 on: May 04, 2011, 02:59:44 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".

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

I can go to at least four Orthodox jurisdictional parishes locally, two eastern Catholic jurisdictional parishes within driving distance, and both the extraordinary and ordinary form of the Roman rite...and in NOT ONE of those parish churches is the Creed recited with precisely the same words...

Pick up a history of the Creeds...Jaroslav Pelikan has an expansive history...and look at the "changes" over time in the N-C Creed, and then come back and tell me about changes to the Creed and how "impossible" they are...

M.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #451 on: May 04, 2011, 03:04:56 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".

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

I can go to at least four Orthodox jurisdictional parishes locally, two eastern Catholic jurisdictional parishes within driving distance, and both the extraordinary and ordinary form of the Roman rite...and in NOT ONE of those parish churches is the Creed recited with precisely the same words...

Pick up a history of the Creeds...Jaroslav Pelikan has an expansive history...and look at the "changes" over time in the N-C Creed, and then come back and tell me about changes to the Creed and how "impossible" they are...

M.

I will check my church's library if I remember to this sunday. Found a book "Ending the Byzantine Schism" from a RC perspective, haven't checked it out but thinking about at least for perspective.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #452 on: May 04, 2011, 03:08:36 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
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?
Belial from Christ.

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

So....
....the Orthodox should recognize Bp. Sluan as Pope of Rome-or translate Met. Gennadios there and recognize him as Pope of Rome-let them fashion the Orthodox Episcopal Assembly of Italy and Malta into the Holy Synod of Italy, and we can all move on in our respective traditions, Orthodox or heretical.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #453 on: May 04, 2011, 03:21:54 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".

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

I can go to at least four Orthodox jurisdictional parishes locally, two eastern Catholic jurisdictional parishes within driving distance, and both the extraordinary and ordinary form of the Roman rite...and in NOT ONE of those parish churches is the Creed recited with precisely the same words...

Pick up a history of the Creeds...Jaroslav Pelikan has an expansive history...and look at the "changes" over time in the N-C Creed, and then come back and tell me about changes to the Creed and how "impossible" they are...

M.

I will check my church's library if I remember to this sunday. Found a book "Ending the Byzantine Schism" from a RC perspective, haven't checked it out but thinking about at least for perspective.

That would be James Likoudis's book I think...You will definitely get "perspective" with that one, but I would not recommend that book before reading some of Pope Benedict's commentaries on the healing of he schism.  Mr. Likoudis was Orthodox and I have the same feeling from his writing as I get from some Catholics who move into Orthodoxy.  Pretty raw emotions underlying the "perspective"....
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #454 on: May 04, 2011, 03:22:27 PM »

Christ is risen!
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.
For starters, let me go to the source, not of the Trinity, but our information of His inner being:

I'm posting all the occurences of ἐκπορευόμενον our key term, in the NT of the Byzantine majority text that I could find (if their are other occurences, and I know their are in other text types, please post).
http://biblos.com/john/15-26.htm

For starters, the proof text:

Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me
οταν δε ελθη ο παρακλητος ον εγω πεμψω υμιν παρα του πατρος το πνευμα της αληθειας ο παρα του πατρος εκπορευεται εκεινος μαρτυρησει περι εμου
ܡܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܐܬܐ ܦܪܩܠܛܐ ܗܘ ܕܐܢܐ ܡܫܕܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܡܢ ܠܘܬ ܐܒܝ ܢܦܩ
ܗܘ ܢܤܗܕ ܥܠܝ

The Syriac I add as some indication of the Aramaic Vorlage. The word npaq appears translates our term nearly always (Luke 3:7 being the exception). Latin procedit does NOT translate our term in all our uses, so even the Latin testifies to John 15:26 as the proof text of the procession of the Spirit.

In the rest of John:

Joh 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
και εκπορευσονται οι τα αγαθα ποιησαντες εις αναστασιν ζωης οι δε τα φαυλα πραξαντες εις αναστασιν κρισεως

And the Johannine corpus:

Re 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
και εχων εν τη δεξια αυτου χειρι αστερας επτα και εκ του στοματος αυτου ρομφαια διστομος οξεια εκπορευομενη και η οψις αυτου ως ο ηλιος φαινει εν τη δυναμει αυτου

Re 4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
και εκ του θρονου εκπορευονται αστραπαι και φωναι και βρονται και επτα λαμπαδες πυρος καιομεναι ενωπιον του θρονου αυτου αι εισιν επτα πνευματα του θεου

Re 9:17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
και ουτως ειδον τους ιππους εν τη ορασει και τους καθημενους επ αυτων εχοντας θωρακας πυρινους και υακινθινους και θειωδεις και αι κεφαλαι των ιππων ως κεφαλαι λεοντων και εκ των στοματων αυτων εκπορευεται πυρ και καπνος και θειον

Re 9:18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
απο των τριων πληγων τουτων απεκτανθησαν το τριτον των ανθρωπων απο του πυρος και του καπνου και του θειου του εκπορευομενου εκ των στοματων αυτων

Re 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
και ει τις αυτους θελει αδικησαι πυρ εκπορευεται εκ του στοματος αυτων και κατεσθιει τους εχθρους αυτων και ει τις θελει αυτους αδικησαι ουτως δει αυτον αποκτανθηναι

Re 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
εισιν γαρ πνευματα δαιμονιων ποιουντα σημεια α εκπορευεται επι τους βασιλεις της οικουμενης ολης συναγαγειν αυτους εις τον πολεμον της ημερας εκεινης της μεγαλης του θεου του παντοκρατορος

Re 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
και εκ του στοματος αυτου εκπορευεται ρομφαια διστομος οξεια ινα εν αυτη παταξη τα εθνη και αυτος ποιμανει αυτους εν ραβδω σιδηρα και αυτος πατει την ληνον του οινου του θυμου της οργης του θεου του παντοκρατορος

Re 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
και εδειξεν μοι ποταμον καθαρον υδατος ζωης λαμπρον ως κρυσταλλον εκπορευομενον εκ του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου

The rest of the Gospels:

Mt 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
τοτε εξεπορευετο προς αυτον ιεροσολυμα και πασα η ιουδαια και πασα η περιχωρος του ιορδανου

Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν γεγραπται ουκ επ αρτω μονω ζησεται ανθρωπος αλλ επι παντι ρηματι εκπορευομενω δια στοματος θεου

Mt 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
ου το εισερχομενον εις το στομα κοινοι τον ανθρωπον αλλα το εκπορευομενον εκ του στοματος τουτο κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mt 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
τα δε εκπορευομενα εκ του στοματος εκ της καρδιας εξερχεται κακεινα κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mt 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
τουτο δε το γενος ουκ εκπορευεται ει μη εν προσευχη και νηστεια

Mt 20:29 And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him
και εκπορευομενων αυτων απο ιεριχω ηκολουθησεν αυτω οχλος πολυς

Mr 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
και εξεπορευετο προς αυτον πασα η ιουδαια χωρα και οι ιεροσολυμιται και εβαπτιζοντο παντες εν τω ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομολογουμενοι τας αμαρτιας αυτων

Mr 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
και οσοι αν μη δεξωνται υμας μηδε ακουσωσιν υμων εκπορευομενοι εκειθεν εκτιναξατε τον χουν τον υποκατω των ποδων υμων εις μαρτυριον αυτοις αμην λεγω υμιν ανεκτοτερον εσται σοδομοις η γομορροις εν ημερα κρισεως η τη πολει εκεινη

Mr 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
ουδεν εστιν εξωθεν του ανθρωπου εισπορευομενον εις αυτον ο δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι αλλα τα εκπορευομενα απ αυτου εκεινα εστιν τα κοινουντα τον ανθρωπον

Mr 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα

Mr 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
ελεγεν δε οτι το εκ του ανθρωπου εκπορευομενον εκεινο κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mr 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
εσωθεν γαρ εκ της καρδιας των ανθρωπων οι διαλογισμοι οι κακοι εκπορευονται μοιχειαι πορνειαι φονοι

Mr 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
παντα ταυτα τα πονηρα εσωθεν εκπορευεται και κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Mr 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
και εκπορευομενου αυτου εις οδον προσδραμων εις και γονυπετησας αυτον επηρωτα αυτον διδασκαλε αγαθε τι ποιησω ινα ζωην αιωνιον κληρονομησω

Mr 10:46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.
και ερχονται εις ιεριχω και εκπορευομενου αυτου απο ιεριχω και των μαθητων αυτου και οχλου ικανου υιος τιμαιου βαρτιμαιος ο τυφλος εκαθητο παρα την οδον προσαιτων

Mr 11:19 And when even was come, he went out of the city.
και οτε οψε εγενετο εξεπορευετο εξω της πολεως

Mr 13:1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
και εκπορευομενου αυτου εκ του ιερου λεγει αυτω εις των μαθητων αυτου διδασκαλε ιδε ποταποι λιθοι και ποταπαι οικοδομαι

I'm keeping the Lucan corpus together...cont...
 
Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
ελεγεν ουν τοις εκπορευομενοις οχλοις βαπτισθηναι υπ αυτου γεννηματα εχιδνων τις υπεδειξεν υμιν φυγειν απο της μελλουσης οργης

Lu 4:22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
και παντες εμαρτυρουν αυτω και εθαυμαζον επι τοις λογοις της χαριτος τοις εκπορευομενοις εκ του στοματος αυτου και ελεγον ουχ ουτος εστιν ο υιος ιωσηφ

Lu 4:37 And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about.
και εξεπορευετο ηχος περι αυτου εις παντα τοπον της περιχωρου

And the Rest of the Lucan corpus:

Ac 9:28 And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
και ην μετ αυτων εισπορευομενος [και εκπορευομενος] εις ιερουσαλημ και παρρησιαζομενος εν τω ονοματι του κυριου ιησου

Ac 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
ο μεν ουν φηστος απεκριθη τηρεισθαι τον παυλον εν καισαρεια εαυτον δε μελλειν εν ταχει εκπορευεσθαι

And from Paul:

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
πας λογος σαπρος εκ του στοματος υμων μη εκπορευεσθω αλλ ει τις αγαθος προς οικοδομην της χρειας ινα δω χαριν τοις ακουουσιν

I'll continue from here....
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
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #455 on: May 04, 2011, 06:00:59 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #456 on: May 04, 2011, 06:01:36 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.
Except for when it almost always happens.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #457 on: May 04, 2011, 06:06:43 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.
Hmmmm. I guess we should try and make that simple, but the problem is that I am a philosopher, and not a Theologian. I would be inclined to say yes, but only in secondary way. Like water that comes from a stream, really ultimately comes from the source of that stream which could be the lake. But I could be wrong in my understanding. I have heard of the concept of the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father and enternally being made manifest by the Son, but I am not sure I understand what that means, which draws me to this final point... We are talking about the eternal mystery of the Trinity. I don't know what is the most accurate language to apply here as the entire thing is infinitely beyond my puny intellect. I suspect that in heaven we will find that we both said things that reflected aspects of this mystery, but that we both did so imperfectly. In conclusion, I don't know if it's an ontilogical procession from the Son. ElijahMaria, do you know if there are any Church documents that clarify this matter?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #458 on: May 04, 2011, 06:08:14 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.
Now this I can agree with, which I think is why I can have sympathy for the Eastern view and see it complimentary of the western view.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #459 on: May 04, 2011, 06:10:19 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #460 on: May 04, 2011, 06:10:34 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.
One goes down a dangerous road when one starts to suggest he knows what God could have done, should have done, does now, or will do in the future.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #461 on: May 04, 2011, 06:11:16 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #462 on: May 04, 2011, 06:11:47 PM »

al-MasiiH qaam!
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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.
Orthodoxy is the true Melkite tradition.

with the Melkite Catholic Church, then why do you two have a problem with it?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
Like I said, Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 06:13:14 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #463 on: May 04, 2011, 06:13:23 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.
I'm willing to agree with you there. Though the filioque is definitely not heretical, it may have been imprudent to add it to the Creed.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 06:13:56 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #464 on: May 04, 2011, 09:09:11 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.

But ultimately, that tells me that you haven't really answered my question: If they have no problem remaining in full communion with Pope Benedict, and Pope Benedict has no problem remaining in full communion with them, then why do you (and deusveritasest of course) have a problem with it?
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #465 on: May 04, 2011, 09:10:16 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.

But ultimately, that tells me that you haven't really answered my question: If they have no problem remaining in full communion with Pope Benedict, and Pope Benedict has no problem remaining in full communion with them, then why do you (and deusveritasest of course) have a problem with it?
Perhaps I am just being obtuse, but what exactly do you think I have a problem with?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #466 on: May 04, 2011, 09:29:57 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.

But ultimately, that tells me that you haven't really answered my question: If they have no problem remaining in full communion with Pope Benedict, and Pope Benedict has no problem remaining in full communion with them, then why do you (and deusveritasest of course) have a problem with it?
Perhaps I am just being obtuse, but what exactly do you think I have a problem with?

I guess a better way I could put it is that you have a problem with them remaining in full communion with Pope Benedict while agreeing with Orthodox teachings.

How's that?

(BTW No, you're not being obtuse.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #467 on: May 04, 2011, 09:49:11 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
I am still not convinced that the Melkites all hold to the seemingly schismatic beliefs that Apotheoun holds to. After all, I posted official teachings from a Melkite site and they seem to be in full doctrinal agreement with Rome. I think Apotheoun would be a lot happier in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as they seem to more closely agree with his beliefs than any of the Eastern Catholic Churches do.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #468 on: May 04, 2011, 09:54:03 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.

But ultimately, that tells me that you haven't really answered my question: If they have no problem remaining in full communion with Pope Benedict, and Pope Benedict has no problem remaining in full communion with them, then why do you (and deusveritasest of course) have a problem with it?
Perhaps I am just being obtuse, but what exactly do you think I have a problem with?

I guess a better way I could put it is that you have a problem with them remaining in full communion with Pope Benedict while agreeing with Orthodox teachings.

How's that?

(BTW No, you're not being obtuse.)
I see, well I don't have a problem with that because I don't think that Byzantine theology really contradicts Latin theology. What I do have a problem with is the extremes to which people like Todd go.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #469 on: May 04, 2011, 09:54:25 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
I am still not convinced that the Melkites all hold to the seemingly schismatic beliefs that Apotheoun holds to. After all, I posted official teachings from a Melkite site and they seem to be in full doctrinal agreement with Rome. I think Apotheoun would be a lot happier in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as they seem to more closely agree with his beliefs than any of the Eastern Catholic Churches do.
Agreed
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #470 on: May 04, 2011, 10:37:49 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
I am still not convinced that the Melkites all hold to the seemingly schismatic beliefs that Apotheoun holds to. After all, I posted official teachings from a Melkite site and they seem to be in full doctrinal agreement with Rome. I think Apotheoun would be a lot happier in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as they seem to more closely agree with his beliefs than any of the Eastern Catholic Churches do.

Actually you posted the views of 1 retired Bishop (JOHN ELYA) who is known for holding latin views you ignored the fact that the vast majority of Melkite Bishops including the current Patriarch voted and thus confirmed publicly to hold beliefs consistent with Apotheoun's. You can also do an internet search and find these to be the same views as expressed by Patriarch Lubomyr who at the time was the head of the largest EC Church. There are plenty of Eastern Catholics that hold these views. This doesn't mean that I understand how they can be in union with Rome or how Rome can continue to be in union with them even though it is quite aware of their beliefs.
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #471 on: May 04, 2011, 10:40:54 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
I am still not convinced that the Melkites all hold to the seemingly schismatic beliefs that Apotheoun holds to. After all, I posted official teachings from a Melkite site and they seem to be in full doctrinal agreement with Rome. I think Apotheoun would be a lot happier in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as they seem to more closely agree with his beliefs than any of the Eastern Catholic Churches do.

Actually you posted the views of 1 retired Bishop (JOHN ELYA) who is known for holding latin views you ignored the fact that the vast majority of Melkite Bishops including the current Patriarch voted and thus confirmed publicly to hold beliefs consistent with Apotheoun's. You can also do an internet search and find these to be the same views as expressed by Patriarch Lubomyr who at the time was the head of the largest EC Church. There are plenty of Eastern Catholics that hold these views. This doesn't mean that I understand how they can be in union with Rome or how Rome can continue to be in union with them even though it is quite aware of their beliefs.
Well that leaves me quite perplexed. I was always under the impression that it was the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches were doctrinally the same as us (the Latin Church) that differentiated them from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Now I am really confused because, if they do not doctrinally agree with us, I am unsure what is keeping them in communion with us? Are we just all kind of ignoring each other now and hoping for the best or what?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2011, 10:41:17 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,301



« Reply #472 on: May 04, 2011, 11:01:21 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
I am still not convinced that the Melkites all hold to the seemingly schismatic beliefs that Apotheoun holds to. After all, I posted official teachings from a Melkite site and they seem to be in full doctrinal agreement with Rome. I think Apotheoun would be a lot happier in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as they seem to more closely agree with his beliefs than any of the Eastern Catholic Churches do.

Actually you posted the views of 1 retired Bishop (JOHN ELYA) who is known for holding latin views you ignored the fact that the vast majority of Melkite Bishops including the current Patriarch voted and thus confirmed publicly to hold beliefs consistent with Apotheoun's. You can also do an internet search and find these to be the same views as expressed by Patriarch Lubomyr who at the time was the head of the largest EC Church. There are plenty of Eastern Catholics that hold these views. This doesn't mean that I understand how they can be in union with Rome or how Rome can continue to be in union with them even though it is quite aware of their beliefs.
Well that leaves me quite perplexed. I was always under the impression that it was the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches were doctrinally the same as us (the Latin Church) that differentiated them from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Now I am really confused because, if they do not doctrinally agree with us, I am unsure what is keeping them in communion with us? Are we just all kind of ignoring each other now and hoping for the best or what?
This is what has the Orthodox confused as well, so you aren't the only ones. Sad

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #473 on: May 04, 2011, 11:11:50 PM »

For what it's worth, I think Pope Benedict's approach is a well-balanced one: he doesn't say Catholic and Orthodox all the same, or The differences don't matter; but he doesn't break off communion with the Melkite Church over those differences either. (Ditto for his predecessors.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #474 on: May 05, 2011, 12:48:28 AM »

Christ is Risen!

For starters, the proof text:
I'll continue from here....

I appreciate the thoroughness. And can't wait for the concluding installments.

Unfortunately, other than short one off posts and posting photos of myself after sleep deprivation, I will just be reading along for a while. Lotsa work, funeral, Church for the weekend.

Thanks again.

I would like to extend a general thanks to everyone who has taken the time to address my question directly (yes, you too Papist Wink)

 
Logged

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

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


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #475 on: May 05, 2011, 02:13:25 AM »

I'm reading this article as a Catholic defense of filioque. I found certain things inconsistent with what I know. I'd appreciate some clarification from Catholics on this forum. Couple questions for the starters. The author of the article says:

Quote
When the Roman West finally got around to implementing the 381 Constantinopolitan Creed (as opposed to the Nicene Creed of 325) in its Western Liturgies, …which, once again, was not until about the time of the Council of Chalcedon (c. A.D. 451) …the Latin translation of the Constantinopolitan Creed carried a notable difference. For, the Greek term for "proceeds" (ekporeusis – "ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon") was translated into Latin as "procedit" ("ex Patre procedentum") –a term that, unlike the Greek, does not imply procession from a single source, principal, or cause.

And it was only natural that the Latins would translate the Greek expression in this way. For, the Creedal statement was drawn (by the fathers at Constantinople I and the Cappadocians before them) from John 15:26, which reads:

    "…the Spirit of Truth, Who proceeds from the Father …"

In Greek, this is written: "…para tou Patros ekporeutai." But, in St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, and in all the earlier Latin translations of St. John’s Gospel, this was always rendered as "…qui a Patre procedit …"

Thus, the Greek implication of the word was never part of the Latin heritage or experience, nor was it directly known to the Latins from the time they adopted the Constantinopolitan Creed (c. 451 A.D.) on. Thus, when Toledo added the Filioque to the Constantinopolitan Creed in A.D. 589, the Western bishops had no intention of amending the Greek meaning of the Creed (i.e., the original, intended meaning of the Constantinopolitan fathers) because that original, intended meaning was not directly known to them. Rather, all that the West ever intended to do was to elaborate on what the Latin term "procedit" referred to, or could refer to, in orthodox Western understanding. And given that the Latin "procedit" carries a different implication than the Greek "ekporeusis," what this means is that it was possible (for the West) to stress a different, equally-orthodox truth about the procession of the Holy Spirit than what the fathers at Constantinople I originally intended to refer to (more on this in a moment).

With that said, however, it must be noted that neither the council of Toledo, nor any Roman decree in favor of Toledo or other accommodations of the Filioque, ever denied Constantinople I or the original Greek meaning of the Creed. On the contrary, Toledo itself anathematized anyone who denied the teachings of Constantinople I (381) and the other Ecumenical Councils. And so, it follows that the Western Church (despite any deficient appreciation of the Greek expression) has never abandoned or turned its back on the original, intended meaning of "proceeds" as proclaimed by the fathers at Constantinople I. Rather, the Western Church teaches, and has always taught, that the Father, and the Father alone, is the Source, Principal, and Cause ("Aition") of the Holy Spirit –that is, the formal proclamation of Constantinople I. Indeed, even St. Augustine, who is often made into an intellectual scapegoat among some Eastern Orthodox (their argument being that Filioque is based totally on Augustine’s supposedly flawed theology) clearly taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "principaliter" --that is, "as Principle" (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). So, there is clearly no contradiction between Augustine and the Cappadocians or the Constantinopolitan fathers on this issue. Both Greek East and Latin West confess, and always have confessed, that the Father alone is the Cause (Aition) or Principle (Principium) of both the Son and the Spirit.

From here it is clear that author tries to show filioque was added to their creed as an intentional something to resolve the linguistic peculiarities of Latin language. I know quite differently. I've read (and I have pointed to the article in one of the threads) that when filioque was added on Council of Toledo they thought is was original creed.

Question: Did Council of Toledo think creed with filioque was original creed? If yes why this author says as if this change was intentional and planned?

Secondly, author says:

Quote
Before addressing Filioque’s Apostolic validity as a matter of theology, we would do well to first explore its canonical validity and the history behind its inclusion in the Western Creed. For, it is often claimed by Eastern Orthodox that the West’s insertion of Filioque into the Creed violates Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), which reads …

    "The holy Council decrees that no one should be permitted to offer a different Creed of Faith, or in any case, to write or compose another, than the one defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea …As for those who dare either to compose a different Creed or Faith, or to present one, or to offer one to those who wish to return to recognition of the truth, whether they be Greeks or Jews, or they be members of any heresy whatsoever, they, if bishops or clergymen, shall be deprived as bishops of their episcopate, and as clergymen of their clericate; but if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized."

Likewise, at this same Council, St. Cyril of Alexandria (as Council president) declared:

    "We prohibit any change whatsoever in the Creed of Faith drawn up by the holy Nicene fathers. We do not allow ourselves or anyone else to change or omit one word or syllable in that Creed."

Now, at first glance, and without resource to historical context, these decrees of the Council of Ephesus seem pretty damning to Filioque. And, while they are easily addressed and dismissed in the light of authentic history, they do call attention to a much larger difference in the way that modern Catholics and modern Eastern Orthodox view the Church and Church authority, and why it has been so difficult for us to communicate with each other about this particular issue. But, before we delve into this larger (and much more substantive) difference, let’s explore why Canon VII of the Council of Ephesus is clearly not a barrier to the inclusion of Filioque.

First of all, please notice how, in the quotes from Canon VII of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria above, the prohibition is not against adding to the Creed of Constantinople I (A.D. 381), but rather adding to the Creed "defined by the holy fathers who convened in the city of Nicaea" (A.D. 325); and, as we already observed, the Creed of Nicaea makes no mention of the Spirit’s procession, but merely reads:

    "[We believe] in the Holy Sprit …" (followed by a direct anathema against Arianism.)

So, if one wishes to be technical about it (as some Eastern Orthodox choose to do by using Canon VII of Ephesus to challenge the legitimacy of Filioque), then one must conclude that Canon VII of Ephesus renders the Constantinopolitan Creed itself illegitimate, since it also "added to" the Creed of Nicaea

He tries to show that the change to the creed was legitimate since Council of Ephesus did not prohibit change to the Nicene-Constantinople creed per say but to the Nicene creed only.

Question: Do you really think that when Council of Ephesus wrote this they only meant specifically Nicene creed and not the Nicene-Constantinople creed?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #476 on: May 05, 2011, 07:47:44 AM »

It's kind of a shame that certain things always get 'lost in translation.' What made sense in Latin may not carry over to the Greek or the English, and thus many misunderstandings may have crept in, without that being the intention of the original authors.  Embarrassed
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #477 on: May 05, 2011, 01:50:39 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?
I don't have a problem with the Melkites. I have a problem with those like Todd, who break with true Melkite tradition.

Having read his online posts over the last several years, I think I can safely say that he hasn't.

Perhaps the real issue lies in how we define "true Melkite tradition".
Well, the Melkites are Catholics, so I see their true traditions are those that are in agreement with the Catholic faith.
I am still not convinced that the Melkites all hold to the seemingly schismatic beliefs that Apotheoun holds to. After all, I posted official teachings from a Melkite site and they seem to be in full doctrinal agreement with Rome. I think Apotheoun would be a lot happier in the Eastern Orthodox Churches as they seem to more closely agree with his beliefs than any of the Eastern Catholic Churches do.

Actually you posted the views of 1 retired Bishop (JOHN ELYA) who is known for holding latin views you ignored the fact that the vast majority of Melkite Bishops including the current Patriarch voted and thus confirmed publicly to hold beliefs consistent with Apotheoun's. You can also do an internet search and find these to be the same views as expressed by Patriarch Lubomyr who at the time was the head of the largest EC Church. There are plenty of Eastern Catholics that hold these views. This doesn't mean that I understand how they can be in union with Rome or how Rome can continue to be in union with them even though it is quite aware of their beliefs.
Well that leaves me quite perplexed. I was always under the impression that it was the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches were doctrinally the same as us (the Latin Church) that differentiated them from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Now I am really confused because, if they do not doctrinally agree with us, I am unsure what is keeping them in communion with us? Are we just all kind of ignoring each other now and hoping for the best or what?
I think the Melkites view the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox in a manner that is compatible with the Catholic faith. If they did not, or if Rome did not at least believe and trust that this was the case, then I don't think we could remain in communion with the Melkites.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #478 on: May 05, 2011, 06:49:10 PM »

I think the Melkites view the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox in a manner that is compatible with the Catholic faith. If they did not, or if Rome did not at least believe and trust that this was the case, then I don't think we could remain in communion with the Melkites.
Well that's good to know. I hope we are right in thinking that they profess the same faith as us.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #479 on: May 05, 2011, 09:32:55 PM »

I'm reading this article as a Catholic defense of filioque.

Hi ativan. What can you tell us -- well, me anyways -- about this article that would convince me to read it?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #480 on: May 05, 2011, 09:42:21 PM »



Actually you posted the views of 1 retired Bishop (JOHN ELYA) who is known for holding latin views you ignored the fact that the vast majority of Melkite Bishops including the current Patriarch voted and thus confirmed publicly to hold beliefs consistent with Apotheoun's. You can also do an internet search and find these to be the same views as expressed by Patriarch Lubomyr who at the time was the head of the largest EC Church. There are plenty of Eastern Catholics that hold these views. This doesn't mean that I understand how they can be in union with Rome or how Rome can continue to be in union with them even though it is quite aware of their beliefs.

Do you know whether or not Bishop John has been corrected by his brother bishops?

Also can you direct me to places where Melkite bishops instruct their faithful that the teachings coming out of the Vatican since 1054, many of them, are heretical or heterodox teachings?

...Because that is what Todd Kasters does...and we are trying to find out if he reflects the teaching of his bishops...So it is important to know what his bishops teach about papal Catholic teaching.

M.
Logged

ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #481 on: May 05, 2011, 10:26:13 PM »

Mary I do not know whether he was corrected (I am not well informed as I rarely take phone calls from anyone below the rank of Patriarch [so definitely no Cardinals]).He has been retired for some time and I have not been to a Melkite Church in nearly a decade. Is Todd presenting these opinions as his own or of the Melkite Church? I may have missed pieces of the conversation and am not necessarily what would be considered an interested party. I am not a Melkite . I can't speak for them. I was just trying to illustrate that there is is a different view between what many latins believe ECs must believe and what ECs (in this case Melkites) feel they must believe. I am sure you have read the works of Archbishop Elias Zoghby. I believe he has faithfully captured the positions of the Melkites. I would suggest that any Latins trying to understand their Eastern Catholic brethren reads his works.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #482 on: May 05, 2011, 11:03:41 PM »

Mary I do not know whether he was corrected (I am not well informed as I rarely take phone calls from anyone below the rank of Patriarch [so definitely no Cardinals]).He has been retired for some time and I have not been to a Melkite Church in nearly a decade. Is Todd presenting these opinions as his own or of the Melkite Church? I may have missed pieces of the conversation and am not necessarily what would be considered an interested party. I am not a Melkite . I can't speak for them. I was just trying to illustrate that there is is a different view between what many latins believe ECs must believe and what ECs (in this case Melkites) feel they must believe. I am sure you have read the works of Archbishop Elias Zoghby. I believe he has faithfully captured the positions of the Melkites. I would suggest that any Latins trying to understand their Eastern Catholic brethren reads his works.

 Smiley  Agreed ~~~

It is one thing to hold to your own traditions and quite another to trash the traditions of the other fellow.
Logged

Veronika
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Catholic/SSPX
Posts: 38


« Reply #483 on: May 06, 2011, 02:47:24 AM »


Question: Did Council of Toledo think creed with filioque was original creed? If yes why this author says as if this change was intentional and planned?

Question: Do you really think that when Council of Ephesus wrote this they only meant specifically Nicene creed and not the Nicene-Constantinople creed?

1.) The filioque was added to combat heresy so no, no one was confused as to the original creed and the change was certainly intentional. I believe the author is trying to shed light on how the peculiarities of the latin original creed made the edition of the filioque non-heretical. While Latins agreed with the greek text, the latin never made exactly the same statement.

2.) I think Nicene means Nicene. Maybe someone can look in The First Seven Councils by Leo D. Davis? I believe he addresses this but I don't have the book anymore.
Logged
Veronika
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Catholic/SSPX
Posts: 38


« Reply #484 on: May 06, 2011, 03:02:01 AM »

Well that leaves me quite perplexed. I was always under the impression that it was the fact that the Eastern Catholic Churches were doctrinally the same as us (the Latin Church) that differentiated them from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Now I am really confused because, if they do not doctrinally agree with us, I am unsure what is keeping them in communion with us? Are we just all kind of ignoring each other now and hoping for the best or what?

After a couple years in Eastern Catholic churches, I think your supposition is correct. As much as been said to me several times, and not just by the laity. It is my personal experience that the only doctrinal difference between a majority of Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox is that the Eastern Catholics recognize the primacy of Rome as the center or anchor of communio.

Have you heard the podcast on Ancient Faith Radio by the Melkite priest Fr. James Babcock? http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/illuminedheart/eastern_catholics_are_they_orthodox
I think his final statements are most illuminating
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #485 on: May 06, 2011, 06:31:05 AM »

Prior to leaving the RCC, I had been to a number of Youth Masses, which used the Apostles' Creed. This, of course, has no filioque.

I wonder what would happen if that supplanted the Nicene at RCC Masses in general. The AC is shorter but it does mention most of the major points of doctrine contained in the other.

I don't know if it'd ever happen. However, it would alleviate at least the obvious difference, require very little change by the RCC and none from any other church. Just a thought.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #486 on: May 06, 2011, 10:11:28 AM »

Prior to leaving the RCC, I had been to a number of Youth Masses, which used the Apostles' Creed. This, of course, has no filioque.

I wonder what would happen if that supplanted the Nicene at RCC Masses in general. The AC is shorter but it does mention most of the major points of doctrine contained in the other.

I don't know if it'd ever happen. However, it would alleviate at least the obvious difference, require very little change by the RCC and none from any other church. Just a thought.

While I find nothing wrong with the Apostles Creed, it's use wouldn't solve the issue of how the Nicene Creed (which is ecumenical) is to be recited regardless of how often it is recited. It's like putting a band-aid on a gun shot wound, it hides the wound so it can't be seen but doesn't actually address the problem. I apologize if the analogy seems a little extreme, just trying to convey the point.
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: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #487 on: May 06, 2011, 11:52:11 AM »

Prior to leaving the RCC, I had been to a number of Youth Masses, which used the Apostles' Creed. This, of course, has no filioque.

I wonder what would happen if that supplanted the Nicene at RCC Masses in general. The AC is shorter but it does mention most of the major points of doctrine contained in the other.

I don't know if it'd ever happen. However, it would alleviate at least the obvious difference, require very little change by the RCC and none from any other church. Just a thought.

While I find nothing wrong with the Apostles Creed, it's use wouldn't solve the issue of how the Nicene Creed (which is ecumenical) is to be recited regardless of how often it is recited. It's like putting a band-aid on a gun shot wound, it hides the wound so it can't be seen but doesn't actually address the problem. I apologize if the analogy seems a little extreme, just trying to convey the point.
I don't know if I have asked you this before, but what would you think about the Latin Creed being altered to say "who proceeds from the Father through the Son"?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #488 on: May 06, 2011, 01:47:45 PM »

I don't know if I have asked you this before, but what would you think about the Latin Creed being altered to say "who proceeds from the Father through the Son"?
I have another question that I thought of after reading this post of yours, Papist. I welcome anyone (RC, EO, or OO) to answer this question.

If I had a glass of water and I handed the glass of water to you and you then, in turn, handed the glass to someone else, would it be correct if the person who received the water said they received it from me only (since I am the origin of the glass of water)? Would it only be correct to say that they received the water from me through you, or could we accurately and logically say that this hypothetical thirsty individual received the glass from me and you without confusing the fact that the water was originally from me?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,409


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #489 on: May 06, 2011, 01:50:29 PM »

I don't know if I have asked you this before, but what would you think about the Latin Creed being altered to say "who proceeds from the Father through the Son"?
I have another question that I thought of after reading this post of yours, Papist. I welcome anyone (RC, EO, or OO) to answer this question.

If I had a glass of water and I handed the glass of water to you and you then, in turn, handed the glass to someone else, would it be correct if the person who received the water said they received it from me only (since I am the origin of the glass of water)? Would it only be correct to say that they received the water from me through you, or could we accurately and logically say that this hypothetical thirsty individual received the glass from me and you without confusing the fact that the water was originally from me?
Yes to all aof the above.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #490 on: May 06, 2011, 01:59:25 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
Prior to leaving the RCC, I had been to a number of Youth Masses, which used the Apostles' Creed. This, of course, has no filioque.

I wonder what would happen if that supplanted the Nicene at RCC Masses in general. The AC is shorter but it does mention most of the major points of doctrine contained in the other.

I don't know if it'd ever happen. However, it would alleviate at least the obvious difference, require very little change by the RCC and none from any other church. Just a thought.
While I find nothing wrong with the Apostles Creed, it's use wouldn't solve the issue of how the Nicene Creed (which is ecumenical) is to be recited regardless of how often it is recited. It's like putting a band-aid on a gun shot wound, it hides the wound so it can't be seen but doesn't actually address the problem. I apologize if the analogy seems a little extreme, just trying to convey the point.
I don't know if I have asked you this before, but what would you think about the Latin Creed being altered to say "who proceeds from the Father through the Son"?
Just a thought. Check what the Libri Carolini say about that when you consider your answer.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 01:59:59 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« Reply #491 on: May 06, 2011, 02:34:29 PM »

BTW, Wyatt (I think) asked earlier whether it is considered a dogma, in the Catholic Church, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as the Father. Does anyone ever answer this (with a citation)?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #492 on: May 06, 2011, 02:35:50 PM »

This thread is turning into when Philosophy goes wrong.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #493 on: May 06, 2011, 02:46:26 PM »

This thread is turning into when Philosophy goes wrong.

I sometimes think the entire site is that. Wink
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Veronika
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Catholic/SSPX
Posts: 38


« Reply #494 on: May 06, 2011, 05:25:58 PM »

BTW, Wyatt (I think) asked earlier whether it is considered a dogma, in the Catholic Church, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son as well as the Father. Does anyone ever answer this (with a citation)?

The answer is yes when proceeds == procedere from the text of the council of florence:

Quote
First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons; unbegotten Father, Son begotten from the Father, holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; the Father is not the Son or the holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the holy Spirit, the holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son; the Father is only the Father, the Son is only the Son, the holy Spirit is only the holy Spirit. The Father alone from his substance begot the Son; the Son alone is begotten of the Father alone; the holy Spirit alone proceeds at once from the Father and the Son. These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where the difference of a relation does not prevent this. Because of this unity the Father is whole in the Son, whole in the holy Spirit; the Son is whole in the Father, whole in the holy Spirit; the holy Spirit is whole in the Father, whole in the Son. No one of them precedes another in eternity or excels in greatness or surpasses in power. The existence of the Son from the Father is certainly eternal and without beginning, and the procession of the holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, he has not from another but from himself and is principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle from principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity

however, the Holy Spirit does not take origin from the Son as the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity the document The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity
The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions

Quote
The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.

And then you end up with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 248
Quote
At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he 'who proceeds from the Father,' it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son (Jn 15:26). The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son (Filioque). It says this 'legitimately and with good reason,' for the eternal order of the divine Persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as 'the principle without principle' (DS 1331), is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only-begotten Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds (DS 850). This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed
Logged
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 0.239 seconds with 72 queries.