OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 01:56:14 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Filioque Is a Christological Error  (Read 33403 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 #675 on: May 21, 2011, 09:26:14 AM »

Right but what's being argued, I thought, was that Scripture explicitly says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and does not proceed from the Son.

I think this is the point of emphasis of the argument.

Quote
Right but what's being argued, I thought, was that Scripture explicitly says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and does not proceed from the Son.

Just to back up a little bit here, you do agree that John 15:26 doesn't say "alone", right?

What the verse does say is that Christ sends the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father. The word "alone" is not in the verse.

A little clarification. Proceed does not mean proceed. The latin word conveys a more general movement, if I am understanding it correctly, where the greek conveys a movement with a specific point of origin. Where I quoted Thomas Aquinas, either on this thread or the other one I forget which one it was, he made a distinction between the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father in an immediate, proper, and principal manner, where the procession from the Son is in a mediate manner. The greek word used in that verse, also used in the creed as composed by the fathers at the council, refers to that immediate, proper, and principal procession (ekporeusis) which comes from the Father. There is a whole other greek word used to convey the mediate procession (proenei) from the Son spoken of by Aquinas. The two are not the same. The procession that is spoken of here in the greek comes "from" the Father and "through" the Son. It is never "from" the Son.

While the word "alone" is not specifically said in that verse, it is implied. Even Rome has acknowledged it to be heretical to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son using that greek word.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #676 on: May 21, 2011, 10:01:55 AM »

Right but what's being argued, I thought, was that Scripture explicitly says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and does not proceed from the Son.

I think this is the point of emphasis of the argument.

Quote
Right but what's being argued, I thought, was that Scripture explicitly says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and does not proceed from the Son.

Just to back up a little bit here, you do agree that John 15:26 doesn't say "alone", right?

What the verse does say is that Christ sends the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father. The word "alone" is not in the verse.

Alright. Just wanted to make sure we agree about that.


A little clarification. Proceed does not mean proceed. The latin word conveys a more general movement, if I am understanding it correctly, where the greek conveys a movement with a specific point of origin. Where I quoted Thomas Aquinas, either on this thread or the other one I forget which one it was, he made a distinction between the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father in an immediate, proper, and principal manner, where the procession from the Son is in a mediate manner. The greek word used in that verse, also used in the creed as composed by the fathers at the council, refers to that immediate, proper, and principal procession (ekporeusis) which comes from the Father. There is a whole other greek word used to convey the mediate procession (proenei) from the Son spoken of by Aquinas. The two are not the same. The procession that is spoken of here in the greek comes "from" the Father and "through" the Son. It is never "from" the Son.

While the word "alone" is not specifically said in that verse, it is implied. Even Rome has acknowledged it to be heretical to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son using that greek word.

Unfortunately, it has been some years since I read the Augustine passage that I mentioned -- the one in which he points out that John 15:26 doesn't say "from the Father alone". Of course, it may be a moot point, for purposes of this discussion, since Augustine wasn't talking about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #677 on: May 21, 2011, 10:14:48 AM »

Christus resurrexit!
Well this went sour fast   Undecided

I don't know about the translation from the passage in general, and perhaps it does say "Proceeds from the Father alone", but the word "Ekporeuomai" in itself just means "To proceed out of", not "to proceed out of alone".

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/ekporeuomai.html

http://studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1607
Not quite: it means to proceed (actually issue) out of its source.

Now, if you want to admit that filioque teaches that the Spirit proceeds out of the Son as His source, feel free, but your Vatican is now denying that it believes or teaches that.

Can you be more detailed about the reference to the Vatican denial? Aquinas may address the point in the 'Reply to Objection 2' that Melodist quoted earlier.

Quote
Reply to Objection 2. If the Son received from the Father a numerically distinct power for the spiration of the Holy Ghost, it would follow that He would be a secondary and instrumental cause; and thus the Holy Ghost would proceed more from the Father than from the Son; whereas, on the contrary, the same spirative power belongs to the Father and to the Son; and therefore the Holy Ghost proceeds equally from both, although sometimes He is said to proceed principally or properly from the Father, because the Son has this power from the Father.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2011, 10:17:14 AM by Alcuin » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #678 on: May 21, 2011, 10:24:42 AM »

Unfortunately, it has been some years since I read the Augustine passage that I mentioned -- the one in which he points out that John 15:26 doesn't say "from the Father alone". Of course, it may be a moot point, for purposes of this discussion, since Augustine wasn't talking about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know which passage that is, but I have read a passage of his stating that it is from the Father alone that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. Having only read that particular verse in latin, which is less precise on this point, and not greek (I don't think was able to read any scripture in greek), he probably did not understand that verse in quite the same context.
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 #679 on: May 21, 2011, 10:46:11 AM »

Unfortunately, it has been some years since I read the Augustine passage that I mentioned -- the one in which he points out that John 15:26 doesn't say "from the Father alone". Of course, it may be a moot point, for purposes of this discussion, since Augustine wasn't talking about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know which passage that is, but I have read a passage of his stating that it is from the Father alone that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. Having only read that particular verse in latin, which is less precise on this point, and not greek (I don't think was able to read any scripture in greek), he probably did not understand that verse in quite the same context.

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

William of Moerbeke was a fellow Dominican contemporary to St. Thomas who made many Greek translations into Latin for St. Thomas.  His story is a very interesting one in its own right.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #680 on: May 21, 2011, 11:07:50 AM »

Unfortunately, it has been some years since I read the Augustine passage that I mentioned -- the one in which he points out that John 15:26 doesn't say "from the Father alone". Of course, it may be a moot point, for purposes of this discussion, since Augustine wasn't talking about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know which passage that is, but I have read a passage of his stating that it is from the Father alone that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. Having only read that particular verse in latin, which is less precise on this point, and not greek (I don't think was able to read any scripture in greek), he probably did not understand that verse in quite the same context.

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

William of Moerbeke was a fellow Dominican contemporary to St. Thomas who made many Greek translations into Latin for St. Thomas.  His story is a very interesting one in its own right.

I was referring to St Augustine.
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 #681 on: May 21, 2011, 11:22:06 AM »

Unfortunately, it has been some years since I read the Augustine passage that I mentioned -- the one in which he points out that John 15:26 doesn't say "from the Father alone". Of course, it may be a moot point, for purposes of this discussion, since Augustine wasn't talking about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know which passage that is, but I have read a passage of his stating that it is from the Father alone that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. Having only read that particular verse in latin, which is less precise on this point, and not greek (I don't think was able to read any scripture in greek), he probably did not understand that verse in quite the same context.

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

William of Moerbeke was a fellow Dominican contemporary to St. Thomas who made many Greek translations into Latin for St. Thomas.  His story is a very interesting one in its own right.

I was referring to St Augustine.

And I was not paying attention!!

I don't know that Augustine did not read Greek...
Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #682 on: May 21, 2011, 11:30:40 AM »

Augustine couldn't read Greek, it is true. By the time he lived, in the last days of the western Roman Empire, communications were well along the way to breaking down between the Latin west and Greek east.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #683 on: May 21, 2011, 12:04:04 PM »

Augustine couldn't read Greek, it is true. By the time he lived, in the last days of the western Roman Empire, communications were well along the way to breaking down between the Latin west and Greek east.

I do think this is a myth though at the moment I don't have an easy source to prove my presumption here.  But I do not think that the breakdown was nearly what we make of it today...some of us.
Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #684 on: May 21, 2011, 12:08:35 PM »

It was less of a breakdown in the east, because until the reign of Emperor Heraclius (reigned 610-641) Latin was still the official language of the government and military in the east. But in the west, Greek had no such official standing, and had only ever been spoken by the educated aristocracy. By Augustine's time, there weren't many left in the west who could read Greek, and Augustine himself could not. Boethius, who lived not long after Augustine, was one of the last westerners to be able to read Greek for some time.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2011, 12:10:06 PM by Alcuin » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #685 on: May 21, 2011, 12:15:57 PM »

It was less of a breakdown in the east, because until the reign of Emperor Heraclius (reigned 610-641) Latin was still the official language of the government and military in the east. But in the west, Greek had no such official standing, and had only ever been spoken by the educated aristocracy. By Augustine's time, there weren't many left in the west who could read Greek, and Augustine himself could not. Boethius, who lived not long after Augustine, was one of the last westerners to be able to read Greek for some time.

Not that he could not read at all or had no experience with Greek but that he was like me and had to work very hard to learn a different language and never really did well enough to handle nuance.

I think that is closest to the truth.  He did study Greek however. 

Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #686 on: May 21, 2011, 12:21:29 PM »

He may have studied Greek at some point, but he wasn't reading philosophic or theological treatises in Greek.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #687 on: May 21, 2011, 12:32:57 PM »

He may have studied Greek at some point, but he wasn't reading philosophic or theological treatises in Greek.

We know several things.  He did receive and read private letters in Greek and could respond in Greek.

We know that he studied Greek, but because he never could become sufficiently proficient in the language, he preferred to read Greek texts in Latin translations.  We also know there were some pretty good translations of Greek texts in Latin.  We know that IF he had a question he could indeed seek out the original text and compare the Latin to the Greek:

What we don't know is how well he might be able to see the nuances in the original and in the translation in any given instance.

What I am working against here is the mythological assertion that he was totally incapable of reading or corresponding in Greek...

I am working against that generalization that says he had no proficiency in Greek and therefore all of his work is undertaken with a complete Latin bias...No particulars mentioned, no for-instances...no mitigation of this false assertion.

That is what I seek to dispel.  I am not making an academic argument here.  I rarely resort to that for any reason any more in my life.  Don't need to...thanks God!

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #688 on: May 21, 2011, 02:22:08 PM »

We know several things.  He did receive and read private letters in Greek and could respond in Greek.

We know that he studied Greek, but because he never could become sufficiently proficient in the language, he preferred to read Greek texts in Latin translations.  We also know there were some pretty good translations of Greek texts in Latin.  We know that IF he had a question he could indeed seek out the original text and compare the Latin to the Greek:

What we don't know is how well he might be able to see the nuances in the original and in the translation in any given instance.

Well put.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #689 on: May 21, 2011, 02:29:56 PM »

Unfortunately, it has been some years since I read the Augustine passage that I mentioned -- the one in which he points out that John 15:26 doesn't say "from the Father alone". Of course, it may be a moot point, for purposes of this discussion, since Augustine wasn't talking about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know which passage that is, but I have read a passage of his stating that it is from the Father alone that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. Having only read that particular verse in latin, which is less precise on this point, and not greek (I don't think was able to read any scripture in greek), he probably did not understand that verse in quite the same context.

I think it's safe to say that there were many in the west who interpreted ekporeusis to mean processio, and many in the east who interpreted processio to mean ekporeusis.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 #690 on: May 22, 2011, 08:13:00 AM »

Christus resurrexit!
He may have studied Greek at some point, but he wasn't reading philosophic or theological treatises in Greek.

We know several things.  He did receive and read private letters in Greek and could respond in Greek.

We know that he studied Greek, but because he never could become sufficiently proficient in the language, he preferred to read Greek texts in Latin translations.  We also know there were some pretty good translations of Greek texts in Latin.
 
Oh, and how do we know that?
Quote
I Would have them believe, who are willing to do so, that I had rather bestow labor in reading, than in dictating what others may read. But let those who will not believe this, but are both able and willing to make the trial, grant me whatever answers may be gathered from reading, either to my own inquiries, or to those interrogations of others, which for the character I bear in the service of Christ, and for the zeal with which I burn that our faith may be fortified against the error of carnal and natural men, I must needs bear with; and then let them see how easily I would refrain from this labor, and with how much even of joy I would give my pen a holiday. But if what we have read upon these subjects is either not sufficiently set forth, or is not to be found at all, or at any rate cannot easily be found by us, in the Latin tongue, while we are not so familiar with the Greek tongue as to be found in any way competent to read and understand therein the books that treat of such topics, in which class of writings, to judge by the little which has been translated for us, I do not doubt that everything is contained that we can profitably seek
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130103.htm

We know that IF he had a question he could indeed seek out the original text and compare the Latin to the Greek:

What we don't know is how well he might be able to see the nuances in the original and in the translation in any given instance.

What I am working against here is the mythological assertion that he was totally incapable of reading or corresponding in Greek...

A little knowledge is a very, VERY dangerous thing.  I could swear I saw you make that observation once or twice.

I am working against that generalization that says he had no proficiency in Greek and therefore all of his work is undertaken with a complete Latin bias...No particulars mentioned, no for-instances...no mitigation of this false assertion.
filioque

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 #691 on: May 22, 2011, 11:31:01 AM »

The following is something available on the Internet.  There are other sources but I think this one will be sufficient to make the case that I was making about Augustine and the Greek language.  It strikes a different substantive chord that the filioque issue but one that is equally interesting:

Quote
Augustine and His Realism

by J. V. Fesko

In the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70-138), we read that God abolished the old order of Moses so that the “new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without the yoke of necessity, might have a human oblation.” Likewise, Justin Martyr spoke of the gospel as a “new law,” and Tertullian employed the same old law-new law categories: “And so there is incumbent on us a necessity binding us, since we have premised that a new law was predicted by the prophets, and that not such as had been already given to their fathers at the time when He led them forth from the land of Egypt, to show and prove, on the one hand, that the old law had ceased, and on the other that the promised new law is now in operation.”  Given this confusion of law and gospel. it is fair to say that for some church fathers it would be difficult to affirm a Reformation doctrine of justification because of the differing hermeneutical presuppositions.  As Scott Clark observes:

“This is not an indictment of the fathers.  To criticize the fathers for failing to use Luther’s (or Calvin’s) language is rather like criticizing Aquinas for not using Einstein’s physics.  The conceptual framework within which most early postapostolic Christians read the Scriptures made it difficult for  them to see the forensic categories.  Because Christians were frequently marginalized and criticized as immoral and impious, the fathers placed great stress on piety and morality.   They did not, however, always ground their parenesis in the gospel in the same way Paul did.”

It was during the Pelagius-Augustine debate, however, where matters pertaining to soteriology, or more specifically justification, were defined with greater precision.

The Augustine-Pelagius Debate

If the early patristic period was marked by a confusion regarding the relationship between faith and works in salvation, the debate between Augustine (354-430) and Pelagius (d. 425) brought greater clarity.  [Sic]... Augustine never addressed the topic of justification in a precise way, and he never devoted a treatise, sermon, or letter to the subject.  Nevertheless, it is helpful to see what contribution Augustine brings to the development of the doctrine, as Augustine plays a significant role in the sixteenth-century debates on justification.

Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin and argues that sin was passed, not ontologically or forensically, but by imitation.  Commenting on Romans 5:12, Pelagius writes:  ”By example or by patter…. As long as they sin the same way, they likewise die.”  This mean, of course, that one could by his works merit his justification.  While God’s grace was helpful it was not absolutely necessary.  Augustine, on the other hand, held to a strong doctrine of original sin, which made the grace of God absolutely necessary and antecedent to the believer’s good works.  Augustine writes:  Grace is therefore of him who calls, and the consequent good works of him receives grace.  Good works do not produce grace but as produced by grace.  Fire is not hot in order that it may burn, but because it burns.  A wheel does not run nicely in order that i may be round, but because it is round.”  Given the necessary priority of grace of God, Augustine’s formulation of justification placed a strong emphasis upon the necessity of faith to the exclusion of works.

Augustine understood that when the Scripture speaks of the “righteousness of God” (Rom. 1:17), it refers not to the righteousness by which God himself is righteous but that by which he justifies sinners. (Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 11, in NPNF 5:87).  This means that for Augustine, the sinner’s justification is a free gift from God given through faith: “In a word, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith; not by the letter, but by the spirit; not by the merits of deeds, but by free grace.” (Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter 11, in NPNF 5:93)  So then, faith received great emphasis in Augustine’s understanding of justification, though it should also be noted that his view of justification was more holistic.  Justification was not merely a forensic declaration of righteousness but also the transformation of the sinner.” (Berkhof, History of Christian Doctrines, 207).

Alister McGrath explains that the initial transmission of a scriptural Hebrew or Greek concept in Latin affected the development of the doctrine of justification.  He notes, for example that dikaioun (“to justify”) was translated by the Latin term iustificare (“to make righteous”). (McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 1.16.) In other words, in the translation from Greek to Latin, the forensic nature of the verb was lost and replaced by a transformative term. “Viewed theologically,” writes McGrath, “this transition resulted in a shift of emphasis from iustitia coram Deo to iustitia in hominibus. The shift of emphasis and reference from God to man is inevitably accompained by an anthropocentricity in the discussion of justification which is quite absent from the biblical material.” (McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 1:15-16)  Yet one has to wonder whether he can pin the development of the doctrine of Augustine, or in the Middle Ages, on the translation of the verb alone.

There are two factors that one should consider in this matter.  First, there is the common assumption that Augustine rarely if ever used the Greek NT.  Some often assume that Augustine used only the Vulgate.  There is evidence, however, that demonstrates that Augustine used and interacted with the Greek text.  Gerald Bonner explains that Augustine was known to verify his biblical references against the Greek originals;  he was not satisfied with the Latin text alone.  As evidence, Bonner cites a letter written by Augustine in 414 where he compared readings of Romans 5:14 in a number of different codices.  Hence, it seems that one cannot say that Augustine was ignorant of the Greek NT.

Second, one must take in account the greater scope of Augustine’s thought, particularly realism, which seems a more likely source for his confusion of justification and sanctification. (Clark, “Letter and Spirit, ” 334)  The apostle Paul works exclusively in legal or forensic categories in his doctrine of justification, whereas Augustine did not strictly do the same.  Augustine understood original sin and its transmission in realistic categories, in that sin is transmitted through natural descent.  Conversely, the grace of God is infused in the sinner to counteract the effects of original sin.  (Augustine, On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1.20, in NPNF 5:22) Augustine also understood Romans 5:12 in realistic terms and, as noted above, was insistent upon reading the passage, in spite of his knowledge of the Greek codices, as a locative, in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in all whom sinned”). It seems like a reasonable possibility that his philosophical presuppositions rather than his knowledge of Greek grammar could have driven his exegesis.  Moreover, in baptism, the church washes away original sin:

“For by this grace He engrafts into His body even baptized infants, who certainly have not yet become able to imitate anyone.  As therefore He, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness to those who imitate Him, gives also to  those who believe on Him the hidden grace of His Spirit, which He secretly infuses even into infants. (Augustine, On Forgiveness of Sin and Baptism 1.10, in NPNF 5:18-19)

Given these theological and philosophical commitments, it seems impossible that Augustine could construct a purely forensic understanding of justification.  If we briefly look forward to the Reformation, the Reformers rejected this ontological conception of sin and grace, and returned to a forensic understanding.  They looked at the sinner’s legal relationship to the first and last Adams.  Just as the sin of Adam is imputed those in Adam, so too the righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who are in him.  This ontological versus legal understanding of justification colors the development of the doctrine not only through the Middle Ages but well into the present day.  In fact, as we will see in the chapter on the RCC, it is something that still separates Protestants from Catholics, and one might add the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Taken from Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine by J.V. Fesko in his chapter titled “Justification In Church History” pages 10-14
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 #692 on: May 22, 2011, 08:39:39 PM »

Christus resurrexit!
The following is something available on the Internet.  There are other sources but I think this one will be sufficient to make the case that I was making about Augustine and the Greek language.  It strikes a different substantive chord that the filioque issue but one that is equally interesting:
Since the author demonstrates evidence that confusion clouds his understanding of the Fathers and mischaracterizes the teachings of St. Paul, I'm not sure I'd trust him. Skipping the outright reference to "development of [the] doctrine," and the mistake of trying to pass Protestantism off as Apostolic doctrine, the only reference to St. Augustine's skills in Greek-comparing manuscripts-is not clear: the Vetus Latina had many varients, much of which came from varients in the Greek texts which-in contrast to the Vulgate-the Vetus was/were wooden translations.

Not sure what Pelagianism could contribute: being a Western heresy, the involvement of the East was mostly in sending Pelagius and St. Jerome all the rest of the Latins back to Rome, and to endorse Rome's solution to where the dust settled on this argument amongst the Latins.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #693 on: May 22, 2011, 10:53:00 PM »

Unfortunately, it has been some years since I read the Augustine passage that I mentioned -- the one in which he points out that John 15:26 doesn't say "from the Father alone". Of course, it may be a moot point, for purposes of this discussion, since Augustine wasn't talking about the ekporeusis of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know which passage that is, but I have read a passage of his stating that it is from the Father alone that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. Having only read that particular verse in latin, which is less precise on this point, and not greek (I don't think was able to read any scripture in greek), he probably did not understand that verse in quite the same context.

I think it's safe to say that there were many in the west who interpreted ekporeusis to mean processio, and many in the east who interpreted processio to mean ekporeusis.

From what I've seen, I get the impression that this has often been the case.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #694 on: May 24, 2011, 04:24:54 PM »

I was flipping through the Summa today (in hard copy so I don't have a link), and as I can reconstruct it this is how Aquinas' argument proceeds.

First, since God is one Divine Essence, differences within Him can only be differences of internal relation.

Secondly, there are three possible principles in a living being: The Sensitive Principle (Body), the Appetitive Principle (Will), and the Rational Principle (Intellect).

The sensible principle relates to things when external objects act upon it (e.g, I get hot if you put my skin against something hot). Nothing external can act upon God, so He has no sensitive principle.

The appetitive principles relates to things in so far as the will draws it towards what it naturally desires.

The rational principle relates to things by producing within itself a similitude of them, and this similitude is knowledge.

Sensible, appetitive, and rational are opposite ways of relation (acted upon, drawn towards, producing a similitude of), so they exist within the essence of one living essence. Again, within God there are only the appetitive and rational principles.

Since the only differences in God are differences of relation, the persons are distinguished by opposite relation. For example, the Father relates to the Son and He relates to the Spirit, but since He doesn't relate to them in opposite ways, He remains one person of the trinity.

The realm of the rational principle is the production of similitude (in the case of God's perfect knowledge of Himself, a perfect similitude), and two opposite relations inhere within: Paternity, the relation by which something produces a similitude, and Filiation, where the similitude is considered in contrast to the thing which has produced it. Herein lie the opposite relations that distinguish Father from Son.

The realm of the appetitive principle is that of desire. There are also opposite relations here, of the same type: Spiration and Procession. If Bill loves margaritas, we could say that the desire for margaritas proceeds from Bill, or that Bill spirates the desire for margaritas. However, things can be desired by the will only insofar as they are known by the intellect: If Bill has no conception of what a margarita is, then he cannot spirate a desire for margaritas. Thus, the Holy Spirit cannot be distinguished by opposite relation from either the Father simply or from the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son, taken together.

Thus, Aquinas concludes that it is proper to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, since the Spirit can only be distinguished from the Father and Son taken together, or from the Father through the Son, since it is through knowledge that the knower desires what is known.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #695 on: May 24, 2011, 05:26:05 PM »

While the Christ is the Word and Wisdom of God, I don't think the Holy Spirit is ever referred in eastern theology as being the will or desire of God. The three principles you list are, to the best of my knowledge, not mentioned at all, or applied to the nature of the Godhead.

St John says something similar,

Further, it should be understood that we do not speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as Cause or Father, but we speak of Him both as from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His, saith the divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples, says he, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit. It is just the same as in the case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or of the Son as derived from the Spirit.

But does not say

Thus, the Holy Spirit cannot be distinguished by opposite relation from either the Father simply or from the Son simply, but only from the Father and the Son, taken together.

but asserts that

For the Father alone is ingenerate, no other subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply proceeding. For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension.

and

But we must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word, and shewing forth the Word, neither capable of disjunction from God in Whom it exists, and the Word Whose companion it is, nor poured forth to vanish into nothingness, but being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees, having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 05:27:00 PM by Melodist » Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #696 on: May 24, 2011, 05:50:54 PM »

No, I don't think that they are. Aquinas appears to construct his formulation of the Trinity more or less from his own reason, not earlier sources, concluding that the Spirit must be associated with the appetitive principle because it cannot be the rational principle (then it wouldn't be opposite to the Son) or the sensible principle (God not having one).
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 05:53:31 PM by Alcuin » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,044


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #697 on: May 24, 2011, 06:11:59 PM »

Quote from: ialmisry
Not sure what Pelagianism could contribute: being a Western heresy, the involvement of the East was mostly in sending Pelagius and St. Jerome all the rest of the Latins back to Rome, and to endorse Rome's solution to where the dust settled on this argument amongst the Latins.

That was before the Schism, and there was only one Church. It seems "the West" is never not to blame. I didn't know a compass direction could be inherently bad.  Roll Eyes
Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #698 on: May 24, 2011, 06:16:48 PM »

No, I don't think that they are. Aquinas appears to construct his formulation of the Trinity more or less from his own reason, not earlier sources, concluding that the Spirit must be associated with the appetitive principle because it cannot be the rational principle (then it wouldn't be opposite to the Son) or the sensible principle (God not having one).

I meant similar (not the same) in that the desire and the intellect are closely tied together similar (not the same) to the ray and radiance from the sun. But, as I said very different in that Aquinas asserts that the Holy Spirit does not relate simply to the Father or the Son alone but together, where St John gives distinct relationships between all three members of the Trinity.

As far as terminology, I wasn't interpreting the three principles too strictly in relating to God, but assumed that they were only used to convey a greater reality.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #699 on: May 26, 2011, 12:08:39 PM »

I don't know how Damascene is using language there, and there may also be translation issues (or simply issues of philosophical vocabulary changing by time and place - Damascene and Aquinas may not signify precisely the same thing by the words they use which are rendered here in english as 'essence', certainly they don't even use the same word since they wrote in different languages) but Aquinas would reject that the Spirit, or any of the persons in the trinity, is an 'essential power'. They are all relations within the Divine Essence, which is singular, and that is why God is both One and Three. That is what brings Aquinas to investigate differences of relation (opposite principles) and thus His exposition on the procession of the Trinity from both Father and Son.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 12:18:26 PM by Alcuin » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #700 on: May 26, 2011, 12:36:24 PM »

I don't know how Damascene is using language there, and there may also be translation issues (or simply issues of philosophical vocabulary changing by time and place - Damascene and Aquinas may not signify precisely the same thing by the words they use which are rendered here in english as 'essence', certainly they don't even use the same word since they wrote in different languages) but Aquinas would reject that the Spirit, or any of the persons in the trinity, is an 'essential power'. They are all relations within the Divine Essence, which is singular, and that is why God is both One and Three. That is what brings Aquinas to investigate differences of relation (opposite principles) and thus His exposition on the procession of the Trinity from both Father and Son.

Very concisely and nicely done!!
Logged

Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #701 on: May 26, 2011, 12:43:25 PM »

I should offer a caveat there - he may agree that it is an 'essential power' if that signifies 'a power of the essence'. But not a essential power as in having an essence of its own, which is separate from the essence of the Father and the Son.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #702 on: May 26, 2011, 01:11:58 PM »

I should offer a caveat there - he may agree that it is an 'essential power' if that signifies 'a power of the essence'. But not a essential power as in having an essence of its own, which is separate from the essence of the Father and the Son.

Divine power and divine energies are not hypostatic.
Logged

Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #703 on: June 01, 2011, 05:58:17 PM »

It seems to me that

West
For Catholics, the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

East
Muslims say that Jesus is a messenger of God but not God. Only one God no Trinity



The more the east, the less the divinity of Jesus.

It only seems that to me, not saying that it is that way.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 06:02:28 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #704 on: June 01, 2011, 06:09:22 PM »

It seems to me that

West
For Catholics, the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

East
Muslims say that Jesus is a messenger of God but not God. Only one God no Trinity



The more the east, the less the divinity of Jesus.

It only seems that to me, not saying that it is that way.

Huh
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #705 on: June 01, 2011, 06:14:30 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit.  

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 06:16:13 PM by Cognomen » Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #706 on: June 01, 2011, 06:18:14 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit. 

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.

Would the son have other spirit than the Holy Spirit?, in other words, The spirit of the Father is different from the spirit of the Son?, are there three spirits?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 06:30:27 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #707 on: June 01, 2011, 06:23:25 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit.  

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.

 Grin Cheesy
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #708 on: June 01, 2011, 06:28:47 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit. 

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.

Would the son have other spirit than the Holy Spirit?

Try this.

RC: One God. The three persons of the Trinity are separate. The Father begets the Son, and the Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, yet share the same Divine Essence.

EO: One God. The Father is God, the Source, and Divinity. The Son and Holy Spirit are begotten and spirated from the Father, yet fully divine. They are separate persons, yet are of one essence with the Father.

Edit to add: Not to disregard Cognomen, just wanted to pile-on.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 06:29:42 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #709 on: June 01, 2011, 06:31:45 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit. 

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.

Would the son have other spirit than the Holy Spirit?

Try this.

RC: One God. The three persons of the Trinity are separate. The Father begets the Son, and the Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, yet share the same Divine Essence.

EO: One God. The Father is God, the Source, and Divinity. The Son and Holy Spirit are begotten and spirated from the Father, yet fully divine. They are separate persons, yet are of one essence with the Father.

Edit to add: Not to disregard Cognomen, just wanted to pile-on.


The Holy Spirit is Beggoten? Are there two sons?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 06:32:31 PM by Inquisitor » Logged
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #710 on: June 01, 2011, 06:41:37 PM »

One Father, one Son, and one Holy Spirit (all 3 fully divine), make up the Holy Trinity.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #711 on: June 01, 2011, 06:42:24 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit. 

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.

Would the son have other spirit than the Holy Spirit?

Try this.

RC: One God. The three persons of the Trinity are separate. The Father begets the Son, and the Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit, yet share the same Divine Essence.

EO: One God. The Father is God, the Source, and Divinity. The Son and Holy Spirit are begotten and spirated from the Father, yet fully divine. They are separate persons, yet are of one essence with the Father.

Edit to add: Not to disregard Cognomen, just wanted to pile-on.


The Holy Spirit is Beggoten? Are there two sons?

I should have written "respectively", but I have a personal pet peeve against that.

Son is begotten.
Spirit is spirated.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #712 on: June 01, 2011, 07:21:30 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit. 

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.

Would the son have other spirit than the Holy Spirit?, in other words, The spirit of the Father is different from the spirit of the Son?, are there three spirits?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #713 on: June 01, 2011, 07:41:23 PM »

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

Inquisitor, I think your statement is offensive.

In the future, I think you should try to learn at least a little about the Orthodox Church before speaking about it.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Inquisitor
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


« Reply #714 on: June 01, 2011, 07:49:46 PM »

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

Inquisitor, I think your statement is offensive.

In the future, I think you should try to learn at least a little about the Orthodox Church before speaking about it.

I just stated what it seems to me and I said it clear. I als said that it was not necesarily true,  But it is a bt hurting to see that the Son is a kind of diminished among eastern christians, I mean, the Lord Jesus is not  Son of the Father in the same maner that ancient greeks beliebed that hercules was son of zeus. The Son of God has all what the Father has, and can do what the father can except to be beggoten himself.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #715 on: June 01, 2011, 07:59:55 PM »

I'm inclined to second the  Huh, but I'll give this a go.

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

This is just not accurate at all.  The Orthodox Church absolutely proclaims that the Son is fully God.  We just don't minimize the Holy Spirit in the process; He is fully God as well.  Hence, the Holy Trinity.  It shouldn't be thought of as the Father & the Son and their Holy Spirit. 

Edit to add: Azurestone, sometimes your picture and the timing of your posts is hilarious.

Would the son have other spirit than the Holy Spirit?, in other words, The spirit of the Father is different from the spirit of the Son?, are there three spirits?



Father is God, Son is God, Holy Spirit is God
Father is not Son, Son is not Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit is not Father

One God revealed in three hypostases (persons).

A Roman Catholic depiction of God.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 08:00:42 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #716 on: June 01, 2011, 08:05:39 PM »

Middle East
OC seem to say that the Father is God,the Son is God but not fully God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But only one God

Inquisitor, I think your statement is offensive.

In the future, I think you should try to learn at least a little about the Orthodox Church before speaking about it.

I just stated what it seems to me and I said it clear. I als said that it was not necesarily true,  But it is a bt hurting to see that the Son is a kind of diminished among eastern christians, I mean, the Lord Jesus is not  Son of the Father in the same maner that ancient greeks beliebed that hercules was son of zeus. The Son of God has all what the Father has, and can do what the father can except to be beggoten himself.

I don't know how you're drawing these conclusion about being diminished. The difference is over understanding of source. If you notice the Nicene Creed says precisely the EO position.

Quote
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Logged


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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #717 on: June 01, 2011, 08:59:36 PM »

But it is a bt hurting to see that the Son is a kind of diminished among eastern christians,

That's like a Protestant saying "It's hurtful to see Catholics worshiping Mary."
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Alcuin
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 122


« Reply #718 on: June 01, 2011, 11:38:25 PM »

Nothing about the Orthodox formulation, which is the formulation of the First Council of Nicaea and First Council of Constantinople, diminishes the Spirit or is in any way unacceptable. It is upon Catholics to argue that our creed is acceptable and is in fact saying the same thing, not that their creed is in the wrong.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2011, 11:38:57 PM by Alcuin » Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,041


Saint Severus of Antioch - the Eloquent Mouth

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #719 on: July 07, 2011, 12:38:01 AM »

Actually, the fact that the Father and the Son are one in essence almost seems to make the filioque a logical necessity. If they are really one in their essence and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, then he must also proceed from the Son as a result of the oneness between the Father and the Son.

By this reasoning, the Holy Spirit must also beget the Son, since the Holy Spirit is also one in essence with the Father.

"Homoousios" does not erase distinctions between the hypostases.

I made the exact same argument on another forum! Consubstantiality is a property of essence while procession is a property of hypostasis.
Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ (Cf. St. John 16:33)
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 0.176 seconds with 72 queries.