OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 07:39:12 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 33936 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #495 on: May 06, 2011, 05:50:17 PM »

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"?

It would certainly fit within the Patristic understanding of the Holy Spirit, explicitly maintains the Father as the source, and better articulates why you claim to have inserted the filioque. I would have no problem.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Veronika
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Catholic/SSPX
Posts: 38


« Reply #496 on: May 06, 2011, 05:58:41 PM »

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"?

It would certainly fit within the Patristic understanding of the Holy Spirit, explicitly maintains the Father as the source, and better articulates why you claim to have inserted the filioque. I would have no problem.

But it would be equivalent to writing a new creed. While potentially true, that was never the intent of that phrase of the creed. I am all for dropping the filioque as a concession for reunion, but if you are proposing a re-write, it makes more sense to change procedit to.. well, my latin is not great, but the phrase "takes origin from the Father" to better resemble the Greek.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #497 on: May 06, 2011, 06:44:32 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"?

It would certainly fit within the Patristic understanding of the Holy Spirit, explicitly maintains the Father as the source, and better articulates why you claim to have inserted the filioque. I would have no problem.

But it would be equivalent to writing a new creed. While potentially true, that was never the intent of that phrase of the creed. I am all for dropping the filioque as a concession for reunion, but if you are proposing a re-write, it makes more sense to change procedit to.. well, my latin is not great, but the phrase "takes origin from the Father" to better resemble the Greek.

Your suggestion would be better.

"Through the Son" still maintains the original intention of the greek while taking into consideration the context of the majority of western teaching and ties them together without actually compromising the substance of what is believed. Also with Rome spending the last 1,000 years defending the filioque, it might help provide a better context in which to understand traditional latin teaching more clearly. Because of this, I don't think this option should be completely discounted as a possibility.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #498 on: May 06, 2011, 09:56:34 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.
Interesting that no one else wanted to respond to my above questions.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #499 on: May 07, 2011, 05:49:47 AM »

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.
Interesting that no one else wanted to respond to my above questions.

If I asked you (the hypothetical thirsty person) where and how you got the water, how would you answer the question? Would you make a point to distinguish between who handed you the water and where it came from?
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #500 on: May 07, 2011, 07:17:50 AM »

I am not sure I am getting the whole water analogy. So if you take water from a spring using a bucket and then someone takes water from the bucket you think the bucket is the source? Perhaps this seems to make sense with water why not try a different substance such as milk where it is easy to see that there is one source regardless of who gives it to you.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #501 on: May 07, 2011, 12:50:27 PM »

I just wanted to point out that I was watching the final lecture in the course I have been taking this semester, "Philosophy for Theologians", and the Lecturer, Fr. Ashley, specifically states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the the Father through the Son".
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #502 on: May 07, 2011, 01:37:09 PM »

I just wanted to point out that I was watching the final lecture in the course I have been taking this semester, "Philosophy for Theologians", and the Lecturer, Fr. Ashley, specifically states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the the Father through the Son".

That is how it is done very often in catechetical moments.  There is always, also, the liturgical "...through Him, with Him, in Him...."   Just as in the Orthodox Catholic Church when one responds that the liturgy is the heart of theology, so it is in the Catholic Church.  Only a polemicist will try to force a teaching to conform to one line or one phrase only.  The citations offered here from the Council of Florence are typical of that with the initial lines of definitioin being ignored in favor of the subsequent lines of text taken in isolation:  Melodist or orthonorm or somebody was a predictable exception to that rule.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #503 on: May 07, 2011, 02:21:18 PM »

I just wanted to point out that I was watching the final lecture in the course I have been taking this semester, "Philosophy for Theologians", and the Lecturer, Fr. Ashley, specifically states that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the the Father through the Son".

That is how it is done very often in catechetical moments.  There is always, also, the liturgical "...through Him, with Him, in Him...."   Just as in the Orthodox Catholic Church when one responds that the liturgy is the heart of theology, so it is in the Catholic Church.  Only a polemicist will try to force a teaching to conform to one line or one phrase only.  The citations offered here from the Council of Florence are typical of that with the initial lines of definitioin being ignored in favor of the subsequent lines of text taken in isolation:  Melodist or orthonorm or somebody was a predictable exception to that rule.

M.
I really like this insight ElijahMaria, because our experience of Catholic teaching and dogma is not just a list of dogmatic statements from this or that given council (though those are extremely important), nor questions and answers from a Catechism (though those are necessary), nor articles in Summa (though those are helpful for giving a reasoned explanation or description) but rather, they are experienced in and understood through the entire life of the Church which is guided by God the Holy Spirit, who the is Soul of the Mystical Body. This includes our liturgy, theological reflection, experience and writing of the Saints and Doctors (both eastern and western). We cannot but affirm the entirety (Catholic) of our Christian sources of knowledge of God, because it comes from God, and no single expression exhausts any given mystery about God. For this reason, Latin, Byzantine, Coptic, etc. theological relflections that come from the Saints are every bit part of our belief. Thus, if I understand the Latin Fathers to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, I must understand this light of, and not in contradiction to, the Eastern Fathers who affirm that the Father is the only source of the Divinty, and must conclude, that by "from the Son", what we as Latins mean is "through the Son" as taught by the great Doctor of the Church, St. John of Damascus.
I want to add, that the lecturer that I mentioned above is a Dominican, and a Thomist through and through, yet he affirms that the filioque means "through the Son".
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #504 on: May 07, 2011, 03:08:59 PM »

The Eastern Church has never opposed the "per filium" in itself; instead, it has only rejected the notion that the "per filium" involves positing causality to the Son in connection with the Spirit's eternal origin (i.e., His subsistence).  According to the Eastern Fathers the Spirit receives His subsistence from the Father alone through procession (ἐκπορεύεσθαι), but they had no difficulty confessing that His presence is made manifest (φανέρωσις) through the Son.  Sadly, at the Council of Florence the Latins insisted on the idea of causality being attributed to the Son and that is why the conciliar decree was immediately rejected by the vast majority of the Eastern Church when the bishops arrived back in Constantinople after the close of the council.  Had the Latins not insisted on attributing causality to the Son it is likely that a real union could have taken place, and even held firm in spite of the collapse of Constantinople in A.D. 1453.  It is to be lamented that the Latins were unwilling to accept the final proposal of the Eastern episcopal delegation, which rightly distinguished between the Spirit's procession of origin (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, and His gushing forth (άναβλυζειν) through the Son.  

As I see it any future agreement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches will no doubt have to be based upon the text below (or one like it), which was written by Gennadios Scholarios:

"We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth (άναβλυζειν) from Him, and we affirm and believe that He flows forth (προχείσθαι) essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 03:10:16 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #505 on: May 07, 2011, 03:13:21 PM »

 

As I see it any future agreement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches will no doubt have to be based upon the text below (or one like it), which was written by Gennadios Scholarios:

"We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth (άναβλυζειν) from Him, and we affirm and believe that He flows forth (προχείσθαι) essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
This is fine. I don't think one need understand Florence as a contradiction of this.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #506 on: May 07, 2011, 03:17:24 PM »

 

As I see it any future agreement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches will no doubt have to be based upon the text below (or one like it), which was written by Gennadios Scholarios:

"We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth (άναβλυζειν) from Him, and we affirm and believe that He flows forth (προχείσθαι) essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
This is fine. I don't think one need understand Florence as a contradiction of this.

It will have to be refined to reflect that causality is not always originate in its nature.  There is a cause that can be processional and one that can be originate.  This is reflected in the western N_C  Creed with Filioque.  When that is finally discussed and understood then no one needs to "stand down"...

M.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #507 on: May 07, 2011, 03:18:45 PM »



As I see it any future agreement between the Roman Church and the Eastern Churches will no doubt have to be based upon the text below (or one like it), which was written by Gennadios Scholarios:

"We Greeks confess and believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) from the Father, is proper to the Son and gushes forth (άναβλυζειν) from Him, and we affirm and believe that He flows forth (προχείσθαι) essentially from both, namely from the Father through the Son."
This is fine. I don't think one need understand Florence as a contradiction of this.
The decree of Florence reads as follows:

In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it:  that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence [οὐσίαν] and His subsistent being [ύπαρχτιχόν είναι] from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds [ἐκπορεύεται] from both eternally as from one principle [μίᾶς άρχής] and a single spiration. We declare that when Holy Doctors and Fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds [ἐκπορεύεσθαι] from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause [αἰτίαν], and according to the Latins as principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence [ύπἁρξεως] of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.

The portions in boldface contradict the faith of the Eastern Church, which is why the Florentine decree cannot be used in order to bring about a rapprochement between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches.  It is absolutely contrary to the faith of the Eastern Churches to say that the Son is the cause [αἰτίαν] or principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 03:33:37 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #508 on: May 07, 2011, 03:27:50 PM »

The Eastern Churches have no problem confessing that the manifestation [φανέρωσις] or gushing forth [άναβλυζειν] of the Spirit through the Son is an eternal reality, but they can never accept the idea that the Son is the cause [αἰτίαν] or principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit.  The West needs to come to terms with the fact that procession [ἐκπορεύεσθαι] and progression [προείναι] are not the same thing.
Logged

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

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Veronika
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditional Catholic/SSPX
Posts: 38


« Reply #509 on: May 07, 2011, 03:43:26 PM »

The Eastern Churches have no problem confessing that the manifestation [φανέρωσις] or gushing forth [άναβλυζειν] of the Spirit through the Son is an eternal reality, but they can never accept the idea that the Son is the cause [αἰτίαν] or principle [άρχήν] of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit.  The West needs to come to terms with the fact that procession [ἐκπορεύεσθαι] and progression [προείναι] are not the same thing.

ITA. However, I do think our Holy Father and theologians understand this. I have only ever 'met' folks on the internet determined to blur the distinction.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #510 on: May 07, 2011, 03:52:06 PM »

As I noted earlier there is a tendency among the Orthodox to truncate the text from Florence as far as we can know it.  Follows the complete text:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/17ecume8.htm

Quote
SESSION 6 6 July 1439

[Definition of the holy ecumenical synod of Florence]


For when Latins and Greeks came together in this holy synod, they all strove that, among other things, the article about the procession of the holy Spirit should be discussed with the utmost care and assiduous investigation. Texts were produced from divine scriptures and many authorities of eastern and western holy doctors, some saying the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, others saying the procession is from the Father through the Son. All were aiming at the same meaning in different words. The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

We define also that the explanation of those words "and from the Son" was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #511 on: May 07, 2011, 04:03:43 PM »

I have no problem with the entire Florentine decree being posted in this thread, because it does not change the fact that the decree wrongly asserts that the Son is a cause - just like the Father - of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. 

That proposition will never be acceptable, nor should it be acceptable, to the Eastern Orthodox, because it contradicts the teaching of the Eastern Fathers.  Causality within the Godhead is a hypostatic property of the Father, and as such it cannot be "shared" with the Son or the Spirit without falling into Sabellian Modalism.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 04:04:22 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #512 on: May 07, 2011, 04:10:26 PM »

I have no problem with the entire Florentine decree being posted in this thread, because it does not change the fact that the decree wrongly asserts that the Son is a cause - just like the Father - of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. 

That proposition will never be acceptable, nor should it be acceptable, to the Eastern Orthodox, because it contradicts the teaching of the Eastern Fathers.  Causality within the Godhead is a hypostatic property of the Father, and as such it cannot be "shared" with the Son or the Spirit without falling into Sabellian Modalism.

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the subsistent Trinity is indeed heresy.

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the essential divinity is not.

As I said earlier there's more than one understanding of "cause" and it is in the meaning of the text and not simply the literal translation that real understanding will be forged.

Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #513 on: May 07, 2011, 04:19:09 PM »

I have no problem with the entire Florentine decree being posted in this thread, because it does not change the fact that the decree wrongly asserts that the Son is a cause - just like the Father - of the Holy Spirit's subsistence. 

That proposition will never be acceptable, nor should it be acceptable, to the Eastern Orthodox, because it contradicts the teaching of the Eastern Fathers.  Causality within the Godhead is a hypostatic property of the Father, and as such it cannot be "shared" with the Son or the Spirit without falling into Sabellian Modalism.

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the subsistent Trinity is indeed heresy.

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the essential divinity is not.

As I said earlier there's more than one understanding of "cause" and it is in the meaning of the text and not simply the literal translation that real understanding will be forged.
Causality within the Godhead, i.e., as font of divinity, is a characteristic proper to the Father alone. 

That said, Divine Causality in relation to creation is a common essential property of the three divine persons, and that is the only sense in which the Son (and the Spirit also) can be described as "cause."  But if one were to apply this sense of causality (i.e., as a common essential attribute of the Godhead) to the procession of the Holy Spirit it would turn the Spirit into a creature, and this is the precise error of the Pneumatomachian heretics.  That is why, as I have said many times, there is no sense in which the Son can be called a "cause" of the Spirit within the inner life of the Godhead without either turning the Spirit into a creature, or without confusing the persons of the Father and the Son and falling into Sabellianism.

The Son - as both St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Gregory Nazianzen said - is not the cause of the Holy Spirit, because causation within the Godhead is a property of the Father alone, since He alone is the font of divinity.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 04:34:13 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #514 on: May 07, 2011, 04:27:51 PM »

St. Maximos the Confessor, Letter to Marinus

"From this they [i.e., the Romans] showed that they themselves do not make the Son the cause [αἰτίαν] of the Spirit for they know that the Father is the one cause [αἰτίαν] of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting [γέννησιν] and the other by procession [ἐκπόρευσιν], but they show the progression [προϊέναι] through Him [i.e., the Son] and thus the unity of the essence [οὐσίας]."

I will never shift from the position espoused by St. Maximos the Confessor, and he said that the Son is not the cause of the Holy Spirit, because in truth the Father alone is cause of the Son and Spirit, the former by γέννησιν and the latter by ἐκπόρευσιν.  Procession [ἐκπόρευσιν] is a causal reality, while progression [προϊέναι] is not.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 04:49:27 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #515 on: May 07, 2011, 04:41:42 PM »

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the subsistent Trinity is indeed heresy.

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the essential divinity is not.

As I said earlier there's more than one understanding of "cause" and it is in the meaning of the text and not simply the literal translation that real understanding will be forged.
The Father alone is the cause of the hypostasis and essence of the Spirit, just as He alone is the cause of the hypostasis and essence of the Son, but the essence does flow through the Son, and in so doing manifests the consubstantial communion that exists between the three persons of the Trinity.  Nevertheless, the gushing forth of the Spirit through the Son is not a causal reality, because causality within the Godhead, as St. Gregory Nazianzen said, is a property of the Father alone.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 04:57:02 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,389


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #516 on: May 07, 2011, 04:59:42 PM »

ITA. However, I do think our Holy Father and theologians understand this.  . . .
Hope springs eternal.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #517 on: May 07, 2011, 05:32:10 PM »

I have no problem with the entire Florentine decree being posted in this thread, because it does not change the fact that the decree wrongly asserts that the Son is a cause - just like the Father - of the Holy Spirit's subsistence.  

That proposition will never be acceptable, nor should it be acceptable, to the Eastern Orthodox, because it contradicts the teaching of the Eastern Fathers.  Causality within the Godhead is a hypostatic property of the Father, and as such it cannot be "shared" with the Son or the Spirit without falling into Sabellian Modalism.

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the subsistent Trinity is indeed heresy.

To say that originate cause is hypostatic in terms of the essential divinity is not.

As I said earlier there's more than one understanding of "cause" and it is in the meaning of the text and not simply the literal translation that real understanding will be forged.
Causality within the Godhead, i.e., as font of divinity, is a characteristic proper to the Father alone.  

That said, Divine Causality in relation to creation is a common essential property of the three divine persons, and that is the only sense in which the Son (and the Spirit also) can be described as "cause."  But if one were to apply this sense of causality (i.e., as a common essential attribute of the Godhead) to the procession of the Holy Spirit it would turn the Spirit into a creature, and this is the precise error of the Pneumatomachian heretics.  That is why, as I have said many times, there is no sense in which the Son can be called a "cause" of the Spirit within the inner life of the Godhead without either turning the Spirit into a creature, or without confusing the persons of the Father and the Son and falling into Sabellianism.

The Son - as both St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Gregory Nazianzen said - is not the cause of the Holy Spirit, because causation within the Godhead is a property of the Father alone, since He alone is the font of divinity.

The Council of Florence does not call for originate causality of the Father and the Son....within the subsistent Trinity.  In fact it explicitly insists on ONE instance of originate causality:

Quote
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.

So you either have to INSIST that it does, which you do.

Or you have to ask, what was meant by cause in the text from Florence, which you refuse to do, and when you are told what it means you deny that it is true.

So dearheart, this is YOUR problem, and not the problem of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 05:35:29 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #518 on: May 07, 2011, 06:20:22 PM »

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277).
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 06:46:13 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #519 on: May 07, 2011, 06:36:29 PM »

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 06:37:08 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #520 on: May 07, 2011, 06:57:48 PM »

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
While I can respect particular a Roman Catholic's need to affirm Roman Catholic ideas no matter what (though I'm personally not so likely to simply adopt them without at least a second thought when probably *the* major and universally respected church historian of the last century disputes them), it hardly seems self-evident at first blush that "Lutheran bias" is the likely devil afoot in Jaroslav Pelikan's above treatment of the filioque as the work cited was published by University of Chicago Press in 1974 (while Pelikan was still a Lutheran), and last time I checked the Lutheran Book of Concord *contains* the filioque.

(Note: no disrespect intended; I have enjoyed your comments agreeing or disagreeing)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 07:10:30 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #521 on: May 07, 2011, 07:10:02 PM »

"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
While I can respect a Roman Catholic's need to affirm Roman Catholic ideas no matter what (though perhaps to a slightly lower degree when probaby *the* major and universally respected church historian of the last century disputes them), it hardly seems self-evident at first blush that "Lutheran bias" a devil afoot in Jaroslav Pelikan's above treatment of the filioque as the work cited was published by University of Chicago Press in 1974, and last time I checked the Lutheran Book of Concord CONTAINS the filioque.

How exactly do you think Pelikan's presumed "Lutheran bias" in this instance colored his treatment of the filioque in the above quote specifically?

(Note: no disrespect intended; I have enjoyed your comments agreeing or disagreeing)


That's fine!!  Thank you very much for the kind words.  I actually have an answer for you.

I think Jaroslav Pelikan is a fine man, Orthodox believer and historian.  I would have loved to have met him and spent time talking to him at a number of levels.  He has a very kind and gentle son, a dear daughter-in-law and two lovely grandsons that I know of and have met.

But in this case I must call him to task for ignoring THE preeminent Catholic historian of the Council, Father Joseph Gill, and also all other Catholic witnesses through the ages who have argued against the position that he expresses in his history, as well as a notable Greek exception to Photius.   I suppose one might say his interpretation of the Council of Florence is Orthodox, but his heart, with respect to Rome, remained Lutheran in much of his way of dealing with Catholic material, more in what he ignored than what he said directly.  I've read much of Pelikan's five volumes and his Credo, and I do indeed admire his competencies however much I will reject those areas where he short sheets the bed of Catholic history.

M.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #522 on: May 07, 2011, 07:20:47 PM »

Quote from: elijahmaria
But in this case I must call him to task for ignoring THE preeminent Catholic historian of the Council, Father Joseph Gill, and also all other Catholic witnesses through the ages who have argued against the position that he expresses in his history
Hmm.. given the fact that Pelikan op cit cites Fr. Gill's work The Council of Florence (1959), and even describes it as "the summation of years of research," it seems rather questionable to say he simply "ignored" it.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 07:22:58 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #523 on: May 07, 2011, 07:40:34 PM »

Quote from: elijahmaria
But in this case I must call him to task for ignoring THE preeminent Catholic historian of the Council, Father Joseph Gill, and also all other Catholic witnesses through the ages who have argued against the position that he expresses in his history
Hmm.. given the fact that Pelikan op cit cites Fr. Gill's work The Council of Florence (1959), and even describes it as "the summation of years of research," it seems rather questionable to say he simply "ignored" it.

It is one thing to give a nod to the work of a fellow historian.  It is quite another to actually use it substantively.  Having read both I can say with some confidence that that Professor Pelikan ignored Father Gill.
Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #524 on: May 07, 2011, 07:50:14 PM »

Perhaps rather than "ignoring" he might have considered and rejected. Obviously he considered Fr. Gill.

But honestly your statements seem like vague generalities; the original quote was primarily citation rather than interpretation. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the same citations appear in Fr. Gill's work.

Saying Pelikan has a Lutheran bias (which is hardly "anti-Catholic" in the case of the filioque since the Lutheran Book of Concord *contains* the filioque), and saying Pelikan "ignored" a work he cited as a major resource, or even saying he ignored it in substance without bothering to show precisely how this is suppose to affect the specific quote which was cited in the first place seems like one non-sequitur after another. If the citations in Pelikan's work are accurate, I don't really sense a problem with the above quote just because it runs against the grain of someone's religious preference.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 07:53:12 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,436


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #525 on: May 07, 2011, 07:56:18 PM »

Anyway, I must run for the present; I'll check the thread later to see if you have something more specific in mind. Thanks for the discussion Smiley
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 07:56:46 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #526 on: May 07, 2011, 08:10:42 PM »

Perhaps rather than "ignoring" he might have considered and rejected. Obviously he considered Fr. Gill.

But honestly your statements seem like vague generalities; the original quote was primarily citation rather than interpretation. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the same citations appear in Fr. Gill's work.


There's no substantive indication that he considered anything in Father Gill's history at all.  In fact what he writes is quite contrary.

Have you read Father Gill's history? 
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #527 on: May 07, 2011, 08:17:34 PM »

Christ is risen!
"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
I could swear that you yourself recently just directed someone to Pelikan on the Creed.  If I get a chance, I''' try to follow my memory through the search button to the post.



but there is a book by Jaroslav Pelikan called Credo which is an excellent historical survey of the various creeds in history and how they have been used over time, and how they have changed.
We are not talking about "various Creed." We are talking what is called in Greek the "Symbol of Faith," and in Arabic "The Canon/Law of Faith" or "The Constitution of the Faith." Just a tad different.

I am almost surprised that you'd think Professor Pelikan would leave out the N-C Creed and all of its permutations up to the present time.

I thought so.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 08:22:32 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
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #528 on: May 07, 2011, 08:19:36 PM »

Christ is risen!
"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
I could swear that you yourself recently just directed someone to Pelikan on the Creed.  If I get a chance, I''' try to follow my memory through the search button to the post.

I don't quarrel with him at all when he's right.   You sure are an all-or-nuthin' kinda guy. 
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #529 on: May 07, 2011, 08:25:40 PM »

Christ is risen!
"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
I could swear that you yourself recently just directed someone to Pelikan on the Creed.  If I get a chance, I''' try to follow my memory through the search button to the post.

I don't quarrel with him at all when he's right.   You sure are an all-or-nuthin' kinda guy. 
No, just not much of a cherry picker.

Soooo you agree with him when he agrees with the Vatican. How convenient.  Well, you can keep the Lutheran Pelikan and we-including the Lord-will take the Orthodox one.
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 #530 on: May 07, 2011, 08:31:42 PM »

Christ is risen!
"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
I could swear that you yourself recently just directed someone to Pelikan on the Creed.  If I get a chance, I''' try to follow my memory through the search button to the post.

I don't quarrel with him at all when he's right.   You sure are an all-or-nuthin' kinda guy. 
No, just not much of a cherry picker.

Soooo you agree with him when he agrees with the Vatican. How convenient.  Well, you can keep the Lutheran Pelikan and we-including the Lord-will take the Orthodox one.

I agree with anyone seeking the truth.  I tend to stop short with those who would rather accept a palatable falsehood or even partial truth, rather than risk the fall-out from not toeing the party line.  I don't know if Pelikan did that.  I do know he stopped very short of the substantive realities of the Council of Florence.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #531 on: May 07, 2011, 08:38:34 PM »

I wonder when the Orthodox posters on this forum will realize that elijahmaria's pronouncements are not the be-all and end-all of Catholicism.

(Sorry for going off topic, but every once in a while you just find yourself in a situation where you say, How much longer will this go on?)
Logged

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

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



« Reply #532 on: May 07, 2011, 08:48:05 PM »

Christ is risen!

I could swear that you yourself recently just directed someone to Pelikan on the Creed.  If I get a chance, I''' try to follow my memory through the search button to the post.

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.

Thanks for the reminder to check my church library tomorrow.
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 #533 on: May 07, 2011, 08:50:31 PM »

Christ is risen!

I could swear that you yourself recently just directed someone to Pelikan on the Creed.  If I get a chance, I''' try to follow my memory through the search button to the post.

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.

Thanks for the reminder to check my church library tomorrow.

The title is Credo
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #534 on: May 07, 2011, 09:01:20 PM »

Christ is risen!
"At Florence in 1439 therefore, the earlier strictures on any theory of 'two principles' were repeated, but the decree went on to declare "what the holy doctors and fathers say, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son," led to the position that there was only one principle of origin, but that the Son as well  as the Father was this one principle. This made the Son 'joint cause' and, as he was "God from God, light from light' in the creed, so also 'principle of origin from principle of origin.' Supporters of the West contended that if the Eastern tradition contained -and therefore authorized- the phrase, 'through the son,' it was obvious that "there is no difference between saying 'from the Son' and saying 'from the Father through the Son' "for the two phrases were 'identical in force'" That was the very objection that Eastern theologians voiced to the compromise, arguing that 'through the Son' was a Latin device for foisting the heretical Filioque on the Greeks. Like the reunion at Lyons this compromise at Florence proved too little too late politically; and even though 'the debate over the Filioque, an endless labyrinth of arguments and counterarguments, continued for more than eight fruitless months,' it also failed to solve the issue theologically, with both sides eventually returning to their historic positions on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit" (Jaraslov Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700), p. 277.
________
Column notes from Pelikan op cit:
CFlor (1439) Def. (Mansi 31A:1029-30); Eug IV Ep. 176 (Hofmann I-II:71)
Joh.Argyr.Proc.8 (PG 158:1004)
Joh.Bek.Un.1.20 (PG 141:60-61)
Thdr.Agall.Argyr. (PG 158:1040)

As a Catholic, I can tell you that I will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church before I follow the interpretations of a Lutheran turned Orthodox...when they conflict.  

I've seen how Lutherans interpret Catholic teaching and I haven't been mightily impressed.

M.
I could swear that you yourself recently just directed someone to Pelikan on the Creed.  If I get a chance, I''' try to follow my memory through the search button to the post.

I don't quarrel with him at all when he's right.   You sure are an all-or-nuthin' kinda guy. 
No, just not much of a cherry picker.

Soooo you agree with him when he agrees with the Vatican. How convenient.  Well, you can keep the Lutheran Pelikan and we-including the Lord-will take the Orthodox one.

I agree with anyone seeking the truth.
 
I agree with anyone who has found it, or rather Him.

I tend to stop short with those who would rather accept a palatable falsehood or even partial truth, rather than risk the fall-out from not toeing the party line.  I don't know if Pelikan did that.  I do know he stopped very short of the substantive realities of the Council of Florence.
Did I miss details, or is the first you have stated your disagreement with Pelikan of blessed memory for his switching sides from Luther to St. Mark of Ephesus?
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: 6,170



« Reply #535 on: May 07, 2011, 10:05:37 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.

Wyatt, you may very well already be aware of this, but just in case let me point out that the bishop in question was appointed by the Pope.

Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,363


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #536 on: May 08, 2011, 11:17:08 AM »

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #537 on: May 08, 2011, 11:46:14 AM »

ElijahMaria,
Thank you for posting that passage from the council of Florence. It was quite helpful. The more I explore the issue, the more and more it becomes clear that we Latins are not in error at all with regard to the filioque and that Eastern Orthodox are just creating problems over linguistic differences for the sake of continuing the schism.

It's more than semantics that are at stake here.  It is how one describes the relationship among the persons of the Trinity.  So there's room for our bishops to talk about that.  Make of list of things we do NOT want to say and a list of those things which are true to revelation and then see what is the most accurate and safe language.  I think Filioque may fit the bill there. 

Then you leave that tradition in the west and agree that neither east nor west is teaching anything heterodox and move on.

Again, the east is clearly going to need to be able to continue with their traditions; they will and do demand as much, at very least.

So I see no reason after all these years to deny that to the west.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #538 on: May 08, 2011, 12:02:56 PM »

http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.html

I had read this article shortly after Hieromonk Alexander published it.  I found it absolutely fun and fascinating to read then and I find it even more so today!!

Enjoy!

Christ is Risen!

Mary
Logged

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

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,620



« Reply #539 on: May 08, 2011, 02:21:12 PM »

(Sorry for going off topic, but every once in a while you just find yourself in a situation where you say, How much longer will this go on?)

Like suggesting to write off a poster who puts an obviously considerable amount of effort to make her understanding clear and known within what is clearly a tedious dialoge?

And you do realize that ialmisry positions are not the end-all-be-all of EO? And yet I find a lot of profit in his posting and entertainment as well. The latter sometimes being more appreciated than the former.

If someone ain't obviously trolling, why belittle their participation, when it seems informed and in earnest?

« Last Edit: May 08, 2011, 02:21:44 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
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 0.192 seconds with 72 queries.