Author Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error  (Read 38804 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,434
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #585 on: May 09, 2011, 10:03:52 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:

That would give people the impression that we have lifted the anathemas (e.g. from the Council of Florence) against anyone who denies the filioque.
Never hurts to reaffirm. :P

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,094
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #586 on: May 09, 2011, 10:05:17 PM »
Quote from: pasadi97
Dear God, why the treASURY of Roman Catholic Church is not LEAD BY A Christian. Does it mean the Romano Catholic cHURCH IS NOT FREE?


WELL SEARCH GOOGLE FOR "VATICAN TREASURY GUARDIAN".

Turn off your Caps Lock.

And, not for the first time, what are you talking about???
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #587 on: May 09, 2011, 10:08:41 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:

That would give people the impression that we have lifted the anathemas (e.g. from the Council of Florence) against anyone who denies the filioque.
Never hurts to reaffirm. :P

No argument there. My point is simply that your proposed anathema is much weaker than the anathemas that have already been made.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,434
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #588 on: May 09, 2011, 10:10:46 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:

That would give people the impression that we have lifted the anathemas (e.g. from the Council of Florence) against anyone who denies the filioque.
Never hurts to reaffirm. :P

No argument there. My point is simply that your proposed anathema is much weaker than the anathemas that have already been made.
There can never be too many anathemas. :D

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #589 on: May 09, 2011, 10:14:27 PM »
You really want the truth, history is for you to read and you can ask God.

God told me that you should leave the Orthodox Church and become Catholic.

(Okay okay, he didn't really say that.)
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,541
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #590 on: May 09, 2011, 10:15:04 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

There can never be too many anathemas. :D
Fair enough; I stand corrected.  ;)  Wyatt wins the thread.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 10:16:20 PM by xariskai »

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,434
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #591 on: May 09, 2011, 10:18:02 PM »
Fair enough; I stand corrected.  ;)  Wyatt wins the thread.
Woohoo! What do I win? Candy? What? Nothing? ANATHEMA!
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 10:18:37 PM by Wyatt »

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #592 on: May 09, 2011, 10:18:38 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:

That would give people the impression that we have lifted the anathemas (e.g. from the Council of Florence) against anyone who denies the filioque.
Never hurts to reaffirm. :P

No argument there. My point is simply that your proposed anathema is much weaker than the anathemas that have already been made.
There can never be too many anathemas. :D

There's the old expression "Damned by faint praise." I guess the reverse of that would be "Saved by faint anathemas."
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #593 on: May 09, 2011, 10:19:45 PM »
Fair enough; I stand corrected.  ;)  Wyatt wins the thread.
Woohoo! What do I win? Candy? What? Nothing? ANATHEMA!

Huh? He just told you: you win some thread.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #594 on: May 09, 2011, 10:25:43 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

I take you haven't read some of the things that have been written about him by Catholics.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline pasadi97

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #595 on: May 09, 2011, 10:30:30 PM »
I am talking about a surprise when wandering on Internet and finding that the Vatican treasury Guardian may not be Christian. Search google for: "Vatican treasury guardian".

Quote from: pasadi97
Dear God, why the treASURY of Roman Catholic Church is not LEAD BY A Christian. Does it mean the Romano Catholic cHURCH IS NOT FREE?


WELL SEARCH GOOGLE FOR "VATICAN TREASURY GUARDIAN".

Turn off your Caps Lock.

And, not for the first time, what are you talking about???
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,541
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #596 on: May 09, 2011, 10:31:01 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

I take you haven't read some of the things that have been written about him by Catholics.
Twas a joke, in reply to a friendly joke.

And of course we Orthodox do honor him as a saint.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 10:38:48 PM by xariskai »

Offline pasadi97

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #597 on: May 09, 2011, 10:35:25 PM »
The good news is this, prophecy says Roman Catholicism will come back to Eastern Orthodoxy.
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,094
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #598 on: May 09, 2011, 10:37:56 PM »
The good news is this, prophecy says Roman Catholicism will come back to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Great! Although if we get it wrapped up that soon, the board will either a) explode from overuse or b) wane away in loneliness.  ;)
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #599 on: May 09, 2011, 10:58:15 PM »
The good news is this, prophecy says Roman Catholicism will come back to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Great! Although if we get it wrapped up that soon, the board will either a) explode from overuse or b) wane away in loneliness.  ;)

And what about all those Orthodox who are devoted to find reason not to unite with the Catholic Church? They'll all be out of a job.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #600 on: May 09, 2011, 10:59:11 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

I take you haven't read some of the things that have been written about him by Catholics.
Twas a joke, in reply to a friendly joke.

And of course we Orthodox do honor him as a saint.

That's good, I didn't feel much like posting them.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline pasadi97

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #601 on: May 09, 2011, 11:11:18 PM »
biro, looks like you have said the prayer and your prayer haas been responded.

This is so so so so important:

Dear God, please force me and humanity to salvation and please show me the truth of all religions and the true religion in your eyes.

Then you can go into your business but God will not forget it, your prayer , and will force you to salvation, because you have put your hope in God.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 11:13:06 PM by pasadi97 »
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,434
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #602 on: May 10, 2011, 12:32:59 PM »
The good news is this, prophecy says Roman Catholicism will come back to Eastern Orthodoxy.
Interesting. What prophecy is that?

Offline xariskai

  • юродивый/yurodivy
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,541
  • יהוה עזי ומגני
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #603 on: May 10, 2011, 04:02:06 PM »
Pelikan's summation only reflects one possible understanding of the Latin teaching of Filioque. Essentially it is the position of Bishop Mark at the Council.. Bessarion has a much better grasp of the situation vis a vis Maximos than does Bishop Mark. So it is clear that Professor Pelikan's summation does not in any way reflect those conflicting views among the Greeks at the Council.  Therefore it is inadequate as a summation.
So now "Pelikan doesn't present the views of all the Greeks at the Council because he ignores Bessarion's understanding. Oops, Pelikan quoted Bessarion. Didn't you notice?

How does the quotation only reflect Bishop Mark and not Bessarion at all when Bishop Mark was never cited in the quotation but Bessarion was? The whole quote was only four sentences long! (consisting primarily of historical citations, numbering five total).

________________
Updated running tally of explanations of why elijahmaria's grasp of Florence is superior to Jaroslav Pelikan's, and why Pelikan allegedly didn't know what he was talking about regarding Florence in a quote consisting almost entirely of historical citations:

those few lines of summation [from Jaroslav Pelikan's book] are superficial and quite misleading
Your comments are superficial and misleading until and unless you document your vague claim.

First you tell us Pelikan's words are biased because he was Lutheran then. Problem: Lutherans affirm the same position as Roman Catholics by including the filioque. Oops.

Then you tell us you can't accept Pelikan's statements because they are too Orthodox. Problem: hardly a convincing reply in an Orthodox forum.

Then you tell us you can't accept his statements because they conflict with your Roman Catholicism. Problem: nothing more than a circular appeal to your personal religious preference. Fine as far as it goes, but not too convincing from an academic point of view.

Then you tell us Pelikan ignored Father Gill. Problem: he cited Fr. Gill Oops.

Then you say Pelikan ingored the gist of Gill. You were asked to be specific. Problem: you never provided a specific reply.

Then you are requested to provide the evidence from Gill. Problem: you don't want to type the pages.

Then you claim you're just making an assertion, Pelikan just made assertions too. Problem: Pelikan provided citations -evidence; you made an assertion that Pelikan didn't know what he was talking about but refuse to provide documentation after repeated request.

Then you are requested to just provide page numbers from Gill where you claim there is a specific rebuttal to Pelikan's quote since you don't want to type out whole pages of Gill. Problem: See next line.

Then you claim the rebuttal isn't just a matter of pages, but it is found plastered all across many chapters of Gill. Problem: credibility of supposing you saw a rebuttal to a small paragraph plastered across many chapters for which you can't provide any single example whatsoever by page reference.

Then you appeal to an article by Gilquist you posted. Problem: it's about St. Maximos, and we can agree with the quote (see my explanation posted above) but see nothing contra Pelikan's citations.

Then you say Pelikan op cit is inadequate because he ignores Bessarion's view, giving only one possible understanding of the filioque, that of Bishop Mark. Problem: How does the quotation only reflect Bishop Mark and not Bessarion when Bishop Mark was never cited in the quotation but Bessarion was?
« Last Edit: May 10, 2011, 04:28:01 PM by xariskai »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #604 on: May 10, 2011, 04:12:10 PM »
Again there is nothing in Professor Pelikan's single paragraph summation that reflects the varying perspectives among the Greeks attending the Council of Florence and the discussion on the part of the Latins is missing entirely for it addressed the very things in detail that Professor Pelikan short circuited in his summation...at least the few sentences that have been presented here.  However it does appear to be intended as a summation.   It is a monolithic and exceptionally brief conclusion that reflects only one part of the several streams of discussion during the Council of Florence with particular respect to the Filioque...but you'd have to actually read the history to know that  :laugh:

The reason that Professor Gilquist's article is directly relevant to Professor Pelikan's summation is the fact that Professor Pelikan's summation only reflects one possible understanding of the Latin teaching of Filioque.  Essentially it is the position of Bishop Mark at the Council.  Professor Gilquist says that Bishop Mark was wrong about St. Maximos's understanding of the Latin west and demonstrates why he thinks so based upon data that he includes in the passages that I have posted here.  It is also clear in Father Joe Gill's book that there's much more to what was said by the Latins in the Council to Bishop Mark than Professor Pelikan's summation allows.  Professor Gilquist also notes that in Gill's book it is clear that Bessarion has a much better grasp of the situation vis a vis Maximos than does Bishop Mark.  So it is clear that Professor Pelikan's summation does not in any way reflect those conflicting views among the Greeks at the Council.  Therefore it is inadequate as a summation.


Here's a bit more from Professor Gilquist that highlights the Pelikan bias, recently contested here.  It should be clear from the following that there is a strong indication that Professor Pelikan took the easy and superficial route in his conclusions concerning what happened at the Council of Florence with respect to the Filioque:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

Quote
(2)

Similarly, you should go and read Alexander Alexakis on the history of the patristic sources used at the Council of Florence. In his article titled “The Greek Patristic Testimonia presented at the Council of Florence (1439) in support of the Filioque reconsidered,” Revue des Études Byzantines 58 (2000), pp. 149-165, Alexakis argues that the patristic florilegium used by the Latins at the Council of Florence, presenting Greek patristic texts favoring the Latin doctrine, originated with St. Maximus and his circle of Greek-speaking exiles at Rome in the seventh century. There are things in Alexakis’s argument that I don’t agree with, but the claim that this patristic florilegium goes back to St. Maximus seems sound. And, if it does, it is evidence that St. Maximus in fact is closer in his thinking on the Trinity to people like Bekkos and Bessarion than to people like Mark of Ephesus. Maximus sees the Latin and Greek doctrines to be compatible; Mark of Ephesus doesn’t.

(3)

I don’t have the book at hand, but I distinctly remember reading in Gill’s The Council of Florence that this letter of St. Maximus to Marinus formed a central part of Bessarion’s argument for union; Bessarion claimed that, if St. Maximus sees the Latins as orthodox, then we should see the Latins as orthodox; if St. Maximus sees the Latins as not viewing the Son as a distinct cause, then we should not see them as doing this, either. This letter seems to have played a fairly large role in Bessarion’s reasoning; to say that “the Latins denied” this letter seems false; they undoubtedly denied the interpretation Mark of Ephesus was putting on it, which was that the Son has no role whatsoever to play in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit; the Latins could not affirm that without denying all of Latin patristic tradition and most of Greek patristic tradition as well.

Your argument about St. Maximus is based on the myth of the non-Augustinian West, the West that avoided the Augustinian defilement and remained Orthodox in a Photian sense. There are others who push this myth; Jean-Claude Larchet is probably the most educated of the ones that I’ve read, but it’s still nonsense. When I compare St. Maximus’s irenicism and good sense with the bombast coming from Mark of Ephesus, of which you recently gave a choice sample on your blog, I think one would have to be embarrassed to equate the one with the other. I would agree that Maximus strives to balance the Western point of view with an Eastern perspective. But the view that Maximus is anti-Augustinian, a defender of the pure East against Western defilement, is, as I have stated above, an an-historical cartoon.

The simple fact remains that, in this, one of the earliest witnesses to a dispute between East and West over the filioque, St. Maximus defends the Western teaching as orthodox.

One last point. St. Maximus, in his Question 63 to Thalassius (PG 90, 672), writes, “For just as the Holy Spirit exists, by nature, according to substance, as belonging to the Father, so also does he, according to substance, belong to the Son, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds substantially from the Father through the begotten Son.” That might be a better statement of the point St. Maximus is making in the letter to Marinus. The “from” properly belongs to the Spirit’s relation to the Father; the Father is the Spirit’s originating cause. But the “through” of the Spirit’s relation to the Son is not negotiable; it is not just something accidental to the Spirit’s being. It belongs to the Spirit’s existence that he exist from the Father, through the Son. The Latins, St. Maximus says, because of their difference of language, express this in terms of the Holy Spirit’s being from the Father and the Son. He says that this is orthodox. You evidently think otherwise.
Then it was the article I already read and replied to already. Another smokescreen for your continual refusal to provide documentation for your remark that Pelikan doesn't know what he's talking about in a short quote of five citations and four sentences? You haven't even addressed the content of the thing yet. Apparently you are confused enough to suppose the above has anything directly to do with Pelikan's remarks?

As I said per the above already, I agree from the example of St. Maximos that the phrase *can* be understood in an Orthodox manner; what Pelikan demonstrates is that it is false to presume that it *must* be and therefore that the phrase in and of itself is a sufficient guarantor that Orthodoxy will be preserved if it forms the basis of a compromise position. Historically it wasn't before (as documented by Pelikan), hence the relevance of the definition of insanity attributed to Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

You still haven't presented anything that challenges any of the citations Pelikan presented in the quote. If so, how so? Here they are again so the reader can compare:

Did anyone actually read this article yet?  It really is quite good and maybe we should start a whole new thread to discuss it.  What say?  
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/adameve.htmlI 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

It is a good article.  However, in St. Gregory's example the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father and the Son comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit.   This contradicts your notion that the Orthodox are simply being stubborn about words and are the ones responsible for the continuing breach.  
The attempt at unity on the basis of Orthodox willingness to concede that "through the Son" doesn't *have* to be understood in a heretical manner proved insufficient to stave off the next mushy middle once before (see the quote from Jaraslov Pelikan in the quotebox below).

Attributed to Albert Einstein is the aphorism that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

"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)

I'm still not clear on what exactly is wrong with the above citations other than a vague appeal to Fr. Gill's work of 1959, which Pelikan also used. Doesn't this forum have a rule about providing specific documentation when it's requested in situations like being told a major church historian of the last century simply doesn't know what he was talking about and ignored the relevant sources? Or is taking the word of some (to the extent of my knowledge) random poster on the internet that Pelikan doesn't know his subject as well as the poster, and that Pelikan allegedly ignored an author he cited in his own work enough by OCnet standards? No disrespect to anyone intended: let's see the evidence!

I was asked if I had read Fr. Gill's work of 1959 on Florence which Pelikan cited in his work; I haven't, but wouldn't mind obtaining it through inter-library loan. In the meantime, what exactly is the problem with the quote from Pelikan, and what exactly does Fr. Gill say that demonstrates this?

Really it's hard for me to imagine what the alleged problem even might be since Pelikan's points seem to have been made by citation rather than interpretation, Lutheran, Orthodox, or whatever.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,767
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #605 on: May 10, 2011, 06:12:10 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

I take you haven't read some of the things that have been written about him by Catholics.
I have to be honest. I shudder when I hear the name Photius. I think that he is even more responsible for the schism than those involved in the Anathemas of 1054.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #606 on: May 10, 2011, 06:47:07 PM »
xariskai, I posted this earlier,

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?)

but it seems to have been ignored by the Orthodox posters, with the exception of orthonorm, and he didn't so much answer it has attack it. So I thought it worth taking a couple minutes to remind everyone of it, for what it's worth.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #607 on: May 10, 2011, 06:50:37 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

I take you haven't read some of the things that have been written about him by Catholics.
I have to be honest. I shudder when I hear the name Photius. I think that he is even more responsible for the schism than those involved in the Anathemas of 1054.

I guess that doesn't surprise me too much. Or, more precisely, it doesn't surprise me at all that there are Catholics who feel that way about him; it does surprise me a small amount that you are one of them.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #608 on: May 10, 2011, 06:54:00 PM »
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911,

Quote
Photius of Constantinople, chief author of the great schism between East and West, was b. at Constantinople c. 815 (Hergenröther says "not much earlier than 827", "Photius", I, 316; others, about 810); d. probably 6 Feb., 897. His father was a spatharios (lifeguard) named Sergius. Symeon Magister ("De Mich. et Theod.", Bonn ed., 1838, xxix, 668) says that his mother was an escaped nun and that he was illegitimate. He further relates that a holy bishop, Michael of Synnada, before his birth foretold that he would become patriarch, but would work so much evil that it would be better that he should not be born. His father then wanted to kill him and his mother, but the bishop said: "You cannot hinder what God has ordained. Take care for yourself." His mother also dreamed that she would give birth to a demon. When he was born the abbot of the Maximine monastery baptized him and gave him the name Photius (Enlightened), saying: "Perhaps the anger of God will be turned from him" (Symeon Magister, ibid., cf. Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 318-19). These stories need not be taken seriously.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

(I'm sure isamisry will be chiming in any minute now to point out that that article has an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.  ;))
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,767
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #609 on: May 10, 2011, 06:55:30 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

I take you haven't read some of the things that have been written about him by Catholics.
I have to be honest. I shudder when I hear the name Photius. I think that he is even more responsible for the schism than those involved in the Anathemas of 1054.

I guess that doesn't surprise me too much. Or, more precisely, it doesn't surprise me at all that there are Catholics who feel that way about him; it does surprise me a small amount that you are one of them.
It doesn't surprise me that you are not surprised, nor does it surprise me that you would mention that you are not surprised.:)
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #610 on: May 10, 2011, 06:58:22 PM »
It doesn't surprise me that you are not surprised, nor does it surprise me that you would mention that you are not surprised.:)

Don't start that again, I'm still recovering from the last round.
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,767
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #611 on: May 10, 2011, 06:58:38 PM »
It doesn't surprise me that you are not surprised, nor does it surprise me that you would mention that you are not surprised.:)

Don't start that again, I'm still recovering from the last round.
;D
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #612 on: May 10, 2011, 07:03:52 PM »
We need to hold another council to state the following: whoever should say that the filioque is heretical, let him be anathema.  :angel:
That would make St. Photius an anathema, wouldn't it, but wasn't he a saint?  :angel:

I take you haven't read some of the things that have been written about him by Catholics.
I have to be honest. I shudder when I hear the name Photius. I think that he is even more responsible for the schism than those involved in the Anathemas of 1054.

I guess that doesn't surprise me too much. Or, more precisely, it doesn't surprise me at all that there are Catholics who feel that way about him; it does surprise me a small amount that you are one of them.
It doesn't surprise me that you are not surprised, nor does it surprise me that you would mention that you are not surprised.:)

http://byzantineee.blogspot.com/2011/03/photian-schism-history-and-legend-by.html

Offline Peter J

  • Formerly PJ
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,259
  • Faith: Melkite Catholic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #613 on: May 11, 2011, 11:47:05 AM »
http://byzantineee.blogspot.com/2011/03/photian-schism-history-and-legend-by.html

Interesting.

Quote
The work titled The Photian Schism of Fr. Francis Dvornik was welcomed with great enthusiasm by Byzantinists

I wonder how it was received by Roman Catholics.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 11:47:54 AM by Peter J »
- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #614 on: May 11, 2011, 01:18:16 PM »
http://byzantineee.blogspot.com/2011/03/photian-schism-history-and-legend-by.html

Interesting.

Quote
The work titled The Photian Schism of Fr. Francis Dvornik was welcomed with great enthusiasm by Byzantinists

I wonder how it was received by Roman Catholics.

Equally well in fact, by those whose business it is to keep abreast of such things and also those who freely choose to do so.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,723
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #615 on: May 12, 2011, 03:06:39 PM »
Christ is risen!

Having major computer problems, etc., but in the meantime wanted make sure I didn't forget this:

Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory of Cyprus By Aristeides Papadakis
http://books.google.com/books?id=TUBllg0JpgUC&pg=PA120&dq=Gregory's+argument+was+intended+to+from+the+basis+of+his+refutation+of+the+doctrine+of+Lyons&hl=en&ei=YC7MTc7dMo63tgeewIWHCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gregory's%20argument%20was%20intended%20to%20from%20the%20basis%20of%20his%20refutation%20of%20the%20doctrine%20of%20Lyons&f=false
which recounts the Orthodox response to Lyons dual procession, Lyons making the filioque entrenched heresy.
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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,767
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #616 on: May 12, 2011, 03:10:36 PM »
Christ is risen!

Having major computer problems, etc., but in the meantime wanted make sure I didn't forget this:

Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory of Cyprus By Aristeides Papadakis
http://books.google.com/books?id=TUBllg0JpgUC&pg=PA120&dq=Gregory's+argument+was+intended+to+from+the+basis+of+his+refutation+of+the+doctrine+of+Lyons&hl=en&ei=YC7MTc7dMo63tgeewIWHCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gregory's%20argument%20was%20intended%20to%20from%20the%20basis%20of%20his%20refutation%20of%20the%20doctrine%20of%20Lyons&f=false
which recounts the Orthodox response to Lyons dual procession, Lyons making the filioque entrenched heresy explicitly defined Patristic Dogma.
Fixed it for you.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 03:10:50 PM by Papist »
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline J Michael

  • Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,456
  • Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Passaic
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #617 on: May 12, 2011, 03:14:45 PM »
Christ is risen!

Having major computer problems, etc., but in the meantime wanted make sure I didn't forget this:

Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory of Cyprus By Aristeides Papadakis
http://books.google.com/books?id=TUBllg0JpgUC&pg=PA120&dq=Gregory's+argument+was+intended+to+from+the+basis+of+his+refutation+of+the+doctrine+of+Lyons&hl=en&ei=YC7MTc7dMo63tgeewIWHCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gregory's%20argument%20was%20intended%20to%20from%20the%20basis%20of%20his%20refutation%20of%20the%20doctrine%20of%20Lyons&f=false
which recounts the Orthodox response to Lyons dual procession, Lyons making the filioque entrenched heresy explicitly defined Patristic Dogma.
Fixed it for you.

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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,723
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #618 on: May 12, 2011, 04:01:03 PM »
Christ is risen!

Having major computer problems, etc., but in the meantime wanted make sure I didn't forget this:

Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory of Cyprus By Aristeides Papadakis
http://books.google.com/books?id=TUBllg0JpgUC&pg=PA120&dq=Gregory's+argument+was+intended+to+from+the+basis+of+his+refutation+of+the+doctrine+of+Lyons&hl=en&ei=YC7MTc7dMo63tgeewIWHCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gregory's%20argument%20was%20intended%20to%20from%20the%20basis%20of%20his%20refutation%20of%20the%20doctrine%20of%20Lyons&f=false
which recounts the Orthodox response to Lyons dual procession, Lyons making the filioque entrenched heresy explicitly defined Patristic Dogma.
Fixed it for you.
Yeah, like the Donation of Constantine.  You guys are very good at fixing things. But then, what forger and con artist isn't?

Do yourself a favor:
Sweeter than honey: Orthodox thinking on dogma and truth By Peter Bouteneff
http://books.google.com/books?id=XPUvkkGd7HgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sweeter+than+honey&hl=en&ei=Lz7MTb6kHs-1tgfxw6yCCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 04:10:33 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #619 on: May 12, 2011, 04:33:38 PM »
Christ is risen!

Having major computer problems, etc., but in the meantime wanted make sure I didn't forget this:

Crisis in Byzantium: the Filioque controversy in the patriarchate of Gregory of Cyprus By Aristeides Papadakis
http://books.google.com/books?id=TUBllg0JpgUC&pg=PA120&dq=Gregory's+argument+was+intended+to+from+the+basis+of+his+refutation+of+the+doctrine+of+Lyons&hl=en&ei=YC7MTc7dMo63tgeewIWHCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gregory's%20argument%20was%20intended%20to%20from%20the%20basis%20of%20his%20refutation%20of%20the%20doctrine%20of%20Lyons&f=false
which recounts the Orthodox response to Lyons dual procession, Lyons making the filioque entrenched heresy explicitly defined Patristic Dogma.
Fixed it for you.
Yeah, like the Donation of Constantine.  You guys are very good at fixing things. But then, what forger and con artist isn't?

Do yourself a favor:
Sweeter than honey: Orthodox thinking on dogma and truth By Peter Bouteneff


The title is ironic coming from someone who sour-mouths all things Catholic.  Why would you think any of us would follow your lead?

Offline Iconodule

  • Uranopolitan
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,233
  • "My god is greater."
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #620 on: May 15, 2011, 06:40:47 PM »
we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.

I'd be curious to read what you think should be done about the Roman Catholic fasting practices. When I read about the minimum requirements, I was rather shocked.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 06:41:12 PM by Iconodule »
"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,094
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #621 on: May 15, 2011, 07:33:28 PM »
There's been talk that Pope Benedict XVI wants to return to the 'old' fasting rules, namely, fasting on Wednesday and Friday every week, and all of Lent. It would be interesting to see if he does so.
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #622 on: May 15, 2011, 07:45:47 PM »
There's been talk that Pope Benedict XVI wants to return to the 'old' fasting rules, namely, fasting on Wednesday and Friday every week, and all of Lent. It would be interesting to see if he does so.

Don't forget the Advent fast too, and fasting before the feast of saints.  Most tertiaries of religious orders already do these things but it would be good if they were reintroduced as regularly catechized parish practices...If any of our priests remember how or when...That was gratuitous...but it is an aggravation on occasion to hear the attitude of some of the clergy on such things.  The fasting rules never went away.  They were simply amended to say that the individual was in charge of what they could and would do on penitential days.  It was an attempt to get away from this sort of infantile minimalism that had set in with some people.  But you can't turn the hen house over to the fox and hope to have omelets for breakfast.

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,094
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #623 on: May 15, 2011, 08:05:31 PM »
Interesting.  :) I hope he does go through with it.
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,473
    • Irenikin: The Skete
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #624 on: May 15, 2011, 08:11:10 PM »
Interesting.  :) I hope he does go through with it.

Me too!!  :angel:

Offline Altar Server

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 980
  • Holy Father Seraphim, Pray to God for us!
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #625 on: May 15, 2011, 10:29:32 PM »
It depends on what Catholics you talk to but it's really just wording
All my hope I place in you, O Mother of God, keep me under your protection!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,767
  • Praying for the Christians in Iraq
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #626 on: May 16, 2011, 12:26:26 PM »
we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.

I'd be curious to read what you think should be done about the Roman Catholic fasting practices. When I read about the minimum requirements, I was rather shocked.
Well, at least return to fasting from meat every friday of the year, as well as on certain vigils, and fasting from meat on both wednesdays and fridays during lent.
You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,434
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #627 on: May 16, 2011, 12:28:27 PM »
we need to clean up our Liturgy and fasting practices.

I'd be curious to read what you think should be done about the Roman Catholic fasting practices. When I read about the minimum requirements, I was rather shocked.
Well, at least return to fasting from meat every friday of the year, as well as on certain vigils, and fasting from meat on both wednesdays and fridays during lent.
Interestingly enough, we are still bound to do some form of penance every Friday of the year. Unfortunately, there are many Catholics who do not know this because, unfortunately, it is not talked about much so people are under the impression that it changed after Vatican II. In actuality, all that changed is that we are not required to abstain from meat. We still should do some form of penance on Fridays though.

Offline Justin Kissel

  • •|•|•
  • Protospatharios
  • ****************
  • Posts: 31,761
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #628 on: May 16, 2011, 12:31:39 PM »

Do yourself a favor:
Sweeter than honey: Orthodox thinking on dogma and truth By Peter Bouteneff


The title is ironic coming from someone who sour-mouths all things Catholic.  Why would you think any of us would follow your lead?

Fwiw, that book was pretty good IMO (though I wouldn't want to read the whole thing online).
"My doubt in Christ is not like that of a child; it was forged in a furnace of faith." - Dostoevsky

Offline Alcuin

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
Re: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error
« Reply #629 on: May 18, 2011, 01:06:54 PM »
I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been addressed, but if it's helpful, traditional Catholic teaching was not that the Spirit proceeding from the Son was necessary to affirm the unity of Essence between the Father and the Son, but rather something like the opposite: That the Spirit proceeding from the Son was necessary to affirm the distinction in persons within the Divine Essence.

Quote
I answer that, It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him; as appears from what has been said above (28, 3; 30, 2). For it cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not be one essence of the three persons: since everything that is spoken of God in an absolute sense, belongs to the unity of essence. Therefore it must be said that the divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations. Now the relations cannot distinguish the persons except forasmuch as they are opposite relations; which appears from the fact that the Father has two relations, by one of which He is related to the Son, and by the other to the Holy Ghost; but these are not opposite relations, and therefore they do not make two persons, but belong only to the one person of the Father. If therefore in the Son and the Holy Ghost there were two relations only, whereby each of them were related to the Father, these relations would not be opposite to each other, as neither would be the two relations whereby the Father is related to them. Hence, as the person of the Father is one, it would follow that the person of the Son and of the Holy Ghost would be one, having two relations opposed to the two relations of the Father. But this is heretical since it destroys the Faith in the Trinity. Therefore the Son and the Holy Ghost must be related to each other by opposite relations. Now there cannot be in God any relations opposed to each other, except relations of origin, as proved above (Question 28, Article 44). And opposite relations of origin are to be understood as of a "principle," and of what is "from the principle." Therefore we must conclude that it is necessary to say that either the Son is from the Holy Ghost; which no one says; or that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, as we confess.

Furthermore, the order of the procession of each one agrees with this conclusion. For it was said above (27, 2,4; 28, 4), that the Son proceeds by the way of the intellect as Word, and the Holy Ghost by way of the will as Love. Now love must proceed from a word. For we do not love anything unless we apprehend it by a mental conception. Hence also in this way it is manifest that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm